Alliance Between TT and Adjunct Faculty That Benefits Both

[fast_and_bulbous]

The best way to understand the value of tenure (or tenure equivalent like rolling multi-year contracts) in the U.S. Higher Ed system is to observe a college or university that doesn't have it. Keiser. University of Phoenix. Liberty. Certain SLAC's. Certain community colleges (those without collective bargaining protections).

When you see how professors are treated at those institutions, one quickly becomes a fanatic believer in tenure. Nobody works at those institutions voluntarily unless they have no other choice.

The UK lost tenure under Thatcher in the 80s; however it appears there is something roughly like it in practice today. I wonder if someone from the UK could comment on the current situation there. Perhaps a country-wide reduction (a big switch is thrown) is actually less disruptive than having it be lost piecemeal. Are there any universities "of note" (definitely not for profit) in North America that don't have tenure where the working conditions are acceptable?

[mahagonny]

I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.

The question posed was not what the typical person with tenure is like, but what the more selfish among them is like. If you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.

Of course those things are a given, too, but it seemed that the assumption was that TT faculty don't care because it doesn't impact us directly, but I'm saying it does impact us directly, so even selfish faculty should want to get rid of the contingent nature of adjunct work. Not only that, but the poorly paid nature of it means a gradual erosion of full-time pay and benefits as well as the whole idea of the professoriate is eroded.
So purely for selfish motives the faculty should want to do away with the whole notion. The problem is that we are just as powerless as the adjuncts. I have supported union drives for adjuncts at my place, but other than that, unless adjuncts just refuse to do the work, of course the admins are going to hire them instead of full-time faculty. 

What do you think tenured faculty get out of having adjuncts?

DvF, who is an accomplished man whose posts I mostly enjoyed on the old CHE forum, and would be the last person on earth preaching the nobility and necessity of academic tenure, if ever there were only one left, explained it clearly on the old forum. Wish I could find it. Something about course offerings that oscillate between this and that, sabbatical leave, fluctuations in enrollment, specialists needed sporadically. He clearly stated that you cannot have tenured granting departments in all fields that will be able to function without some adjunct complement. There's the money part of it too.

[scamp]

The best way to understand the value of tenure (or tenure equivalent like rolling multi-year contracts) in the U.S. Higher Ed system is to observe a college or university that doesn't have it. Keiser. University of Phoenix. Liberty. Certain SLAC's. Certain community colleges (those without collective bargaining protections).

When you see how professors are treated at those institutions, one quickly becomes a fanatic believer in tenure. Nobody works at those institutions voluntarily unless they have no other choice.

The UK lost tenure under Thatcher in the 80s; however it appears there is something roughly like it in practice today. I wonder if someone from the UK could comment on the current situation there. Perhaps a country-wide reduction (a big switch is thrown) is actually less disruptive than having it be lost piecemeal. Are there any universities "of note" (definitely not for profit) in North America that don't have tenure where the working conditions are acceptable?

Workplace protections in the UK are much stronger all around, so getting rid of tenure specifically doesn't mean you are at the whim of your superiors in the way it might here. There is also a national union for professors. So the general climate for workers in the UK is generally better than in the US, which means tenure is more of an incremental bonus.

For better or worse, getting rid of someone is still really hard at UK universities, and often takes years as you need to be documenting, informing if they are not doing their job, and then giving them a chance to redeem themselves basically. One of my colleagues was coming to campus drunk, while still on probation, and still didn't lose their job, as one egregious example.

[pedanticromantic]

If you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.

Well there are people on this very board, myself included, so you only  have to actually open your mind a little. I have no idea why you think tenure is the issue. The UK did away with tenure, as others have pointed out, and still have roughly the same amount of contingent faculty as the US, so you'll have to point your guns elsewhere I'm afraid.

I get why you're bitter, I really do. I very nearly gave up on the whole system after it took me 5 years to land a full-time gig. But don't take it out on the people who did land the jobs. It's not their fault, and there isn't anything they can do. If you want to get angry, get angry at governments that have chosen to de-fund education while giving corporations massive tax breaks. Get angry at the rich for making off like bandits and offshoring their wealth instead of putting it back into the system. They are the ones who are to blame here.  Full-time faculty have no power to change the system and most are overworked and barely clinging on themselves. You only have to look at recent studies into the mental health of faculty:
I'm only aware of these studies in the UK:
"according to research which describes "an epidemic" of poor mental health among higher education staff (note: in UK faculty are called staff). Freedom of information requests revealed that at one university, staff referrals to counselling services went up more than 300% over a six-year period up to 2015 while, at another, referrals to occupational health soared by more than 400%. " https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/higher-education-staff-suffer-epidemic-of-poor-mental-health

[mahagonny]

If you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.

Well there are people on this very board, myself included, so you only  have to actually open your mind a little. I have no idea why you think tenure is the issue. The UK did away with tenure, as others have pointed out, and still have roughly the same amount of contingent faculty as the US, so you'll have to point your guns elsewhere I'm afraid.

I get why you're bitter, I really do. I very nearly gave up on the whole system after it took me 5 years to land a full-time gig. But don't take it out on the people who did land the jobs. It's not their fault, and there isn't anything they can do. If you want to get angry, get angry at governments that have chosen to de-fund education while giving corporations massive tax breaks. Get angry at the rich for making off like bandits and offshoring their wealth instead of putting it back into the system. They are the ones who are to blame here.  Full-time faculty have no power to change the system and most are overworked and barely clinging on themselves. You only have to look at recent studies into the mental health of faculty:
I'm only aware of these studies in the UK:
"according to research which describes "an epidemic" of poor mental health among higher education staff (note: in UK faculty are called staff). Freedom of information requests revealed that at one university, staff referrals to counselling services went up more than 300% over a six-year period up to 2015 while, at another, referrals to occupational health soared by more than 400%. " https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/higher-education-staff-suffer-epidemic-of-poor-mental-health

Well let me try to see it your way then. I guess knowledge is derived from study, while feelings and state of mind are the result of life experience. Nevertheless, some facts: in my tenure granting school, the adjunct union tried to bargain for access to the health insurance pool. Not free insurance. Just the opportunity to get into the pool with some contribution from the employer. The university told us all of the money for health care of its employees was for administrative staff and 'regular faculty.' The tenure track union, who has been amassing a fortune chest for their legal representation for the last thirty some years and retires with nice pensions, said 'we're not getting involved.' The people who can't be punished for speaking their minds. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they spoke. I will never forget it.
Whereas in my non-tenure granting school, years ago the full time and part time faculty, together formed a union. A few years later, they said, 'hey, WTF? Why can't the part time faculty have health insurance? Of course they should.' And we got it. So, try to make me believe tenure does not promote labor injustice? I'll believe it when I see it.

[pedanticromantic]

So you have a single anecdote, and you probably have almost none of the facts about that situation--I certainly don't except for you word. Somehow, though, based on one experience you have decided that it's the fault of tenured faculty somehow despite the fact that I have pointed out it's simply not and you've not been able to refute anything that I've said?
The UK has no tenure and still has the same problems. It is not an issue of tenure. It's an issue of money that institutions have or don't have.
You really need to stop blaming the wrong people. I'm pretty sure if you do get a job interview that anger and bitterness is coming through, because it seems pretty strong.

[mahagonny]

I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.

[mahagonny]

...but the main point is not to blame people for acting in typical self-interested ways that human beings act, but to understand that when alliance between factions of the workforce is not practical, desired, logical, etc. then there's a system that is in crisis.

I agree with this:

I guess what I am against is "tenure is sacrosanct" - an attitude I have encountered more than I would prefer.

[pedanticromantic]

I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.

I don't even understand what you're saying, mate. You haven't given me any evidence that I'm wrong. Tenured faculty don't want adjuncts: we want more tenure-line faculty who can share the load. I've said that already. It's in our own selfish interests to get rid of adjuncts and have more tenured faculty, but as I've said it's not in our power. Even if we were pure evil, we'd love to get rid of adjuncts to have more faculty to share the shit-load of committee work we have to do, believe me.  But we're not evil, and these days many of us (perhaps even most) have been an adjunct as well at some point so we understand.
And I've never said tenure is sacrosanct. I think it's important. I've also worked in the UK system so I know what it's like to work without tenure there too. It makes _no_ difference to the number of contingent faculty being hired.
You're just bitter and angry but like I said you're taking it out on the wrong people/wrong system.
Maybe you should use some of that energy to publish more instead of complain on forums?

[mahagonny]

I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.

I don't even understand what you're saying, mate. You haven't given me any evidence that I'm wrong. Tenured faculty don't want adjuncts: we want more tenure-line faculty who can share the load. I've said that already. It's in our own selfish interests to get rid of adjuncts and have more tenured faculty, but as I've said it's not in our power. Even if we were pure evil, we'd love to get rid of adjuncts to have more faculty to share the shit-load of committee work we have to do, believe me.  But we're not evil, and these days many of us (perhaps even most) have been an adjunct as well at some point so we understand.
And I've never said tenure is sacrosanct. I think it's important. I've also worked in the UK system so I know what it's like to work without tenure there too. It makes _no_ difference to the number of contingent faculty being hired.
You're just bitter and angry but like I said you're taking it out on the wrong people/wrong system.
Maybe you should use some of that energy to publish more instead of complain on forums?

And I don't understand what you're saying. I, as well a bunch of colleagues, been hired as an adjunct repeatedly  by the same people you say don't want us. Oh I agree TT faculty want more tenure lines. That's not the issue. All of the tenured faculty, together, agree sincerely, that they hate adjunctfication. But each, or enough of them of them has needs that involve using adjuncts.The issue is the slippery slope. Professor A has his research project hot on the burner. He needs someone to cover for him. The chair, wanting to see the right guy promoted, hires the adjunct. Next Professor B wants a course release and he doesn't quite have the energy of 'A' but the chair wants to appear fair and, face it, he's only chair for a few years and then he'll be coming to the new chair with needs. And the administrators will use the scenario to pin adjunct use on others and expand it. All of this can happen without tenure, but it happens worse with tenure, because assistant professor is not where anyone wants to be, and publishing and promotions are so ponderous and overbearing. And some will make it to the top and take advantage of their status because others did it to them  and become expensive deadwood in the twilight of their career, which can linger. Why be in a hurry to retire if you're hardly working?. And somebody will be 'temporary', dead end employed, neglected, overtired and conspicuously not part of the community. And TT faculty will care, but they will always have something they care about much more that perpetuates the cycle. Sounds bitter? Do you expect people to be applauding?

[marshwiggle]

I guess knowledge is derived from study, while feelings and state of mind are the result of life experience.

Mahagonny, in all of these discussions, I get a strong sense of what you see is wrong with the system. But what I am almost totally in the dark on is what the system ought to be, if it was as you think it should be. For instance, here are some questions I have:

• Should there be different categories of faculty, such as full-time and part-time? If so, in what sort of ratio?
• Should all faculty require a terminal degree, and if not, when should that not matter?
• When things like drops in enrollment happen so that sections are cancelled, to what degree should faculty be compensated?
• Should part-time faculty have some sort of "right of first refusal" for courses, and if so, what should be the conditions under which that is granted?
• Should part-time faculty get individual offices, computers, etc. like full-time faculty, and if not, what should they be given instead?

I'd honestly like to hear your version of a healthy institution because I realize I have no idea of what it would look like, even after tons of these discussions. I'd guess I'm probably not the only one. All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union. (But if it had good administrators, then the union wouldn't have many big battles in the first place.)

[pedanticromantic]

I have clearly refuted your claim that tenured faculty do not need any adjunct staffing, at least a couple of times.

I don't even understand what you're saying, mate. You haven't given me any evidence that I'm wrong. Tenured faculty don't want adjuncts: we want more tenure-line faculty who can share the load. I've said that already. It's in our own selfish interests to get rid of adjuncts and have more tenured faculty, but as I've said it's not in our power. Even if we were pure evil, we'd love to get rid of adjuncts to have more faculty to share the shit-load of committee work we have to do, believe me.  But we're not evil, and these days many of us (perhaps even most) have been an adjunct as well at some point so we understand.
And I've never said tenure is sacrosanct. I think it's important. I've also worked in the UK system so I know what it's like to work without tenure there too. It makes _no_ difference to the number of contingent faculty being hired.
You're just bitter and angry but like I said you're taking it out on the wrong people/wrong system.
Maybe you should use some of that energy to publish more instead of complain on forums?

And I don't understand what you're saying. I, as well a bunch of colleagues, been hired as an adjunct repeatedly  by the same people you say don't want us. Oh I agree TT faculty want more tenure lines. That's not the issue. All of the tenured faculty, together, agree sincerely, that they hate adjunctfication. But each, or enough of them of them has needs that involve using adjuncts.The issue is the slippery slope. Professor A has his research project hot on the burner. He needs someone to cover for him. The chair, wanting to see the right guy promoted, hires the adjunct. Next Professor B wants a course release and he doesn't quite have the energy of 'A' but the chair wants to appear fair and, face it, he's only chair for a few years and then he'll be coming to the new chair with needs. And the administrators will use the scenario to pin adjunct use on others and expand it. All of this can happen without tenure, but it happens worse with tenure, because assistant professor is not where anyone wants to be, and publishing and promotions are so ponderous and overbearing. And some will make it to the top and take advantage of their status because others did it to them  and become expensive deadwood in the twilight of their career, which can linger. Why be in a hurry to retire if you're hardly working?. And somebody will be 'temporary', dead end employed, neglected, overtired and conspicuously not part of the community. And TT faculty will care, but they will always have something they care about much more that perpetuates the cycle. Sounds bitter? Do you expect people to be applauding?

I'm with Marshwiggle: What exactly would you have us do, and how do you think we can possibly change things? And we are not hardly working, everyone I know who is beyond retirement age is still very, very active in university life. The idea of "deadwood" is largely dead.  Most of us are putting in at least 50 hour weeks to keep the lights on, and I resent this idea you have that you can just get tenure and sit on your laurels. It just doesn't work that way anymore. Most faculty I know are taking early retirement because they're exploding from the workload. As the link I posted earlier points out, mental health issues relating to the pressures and overwork are rife in the academy. It's not some ideal you have in your head.

[polly_mer]

All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union.

You don't need a union if most of the workers are actually hard to replace because:

a) specific skills are needed that cannot be acquired by most humans of average intelligence in weeks/months.  Most graduate educated adjuncts already meet this requirement.

b) a critical mass of the qualified people share the same criteria for being employed in terms of minimum pay, benefits, and working conditions.  As Mahagonny has identified on other threads, graduate educated adjuncts in certain fields span too wide a range for this to be applicable.

c) the work cannot be adjusted so that some other mechanism will meet the same goals without the workers or at least the same number of workers.  Automation often plays a role outside academia.  Inside academia, options include having one huge lecture section with smaller group discussion guided by student facilitators (in classroom or online) , eliminating/changing general education requirements that vary from institution to institution anyway, having standalone institutions/programs that don't claim to be colleges yet will provide desirable education and training, or simply limiting student enrollment to what constitutes a comfortable level of staffing consistent with natural staff turnover.

d) the number of people qualified and willing to do the offered jobs is below or roughly equivalent with the number of jobs available.  Again, when far more qualified people want the jobs than jobs exist, then the employer can be more cavalier regarding any one individual or groups of specific individuals.  When keeping enough people happy enough to stay employed at a given employer to actually get the work done becomes a problem, then employers are much less cavalier about general working conditions. 

When being confident that the only true work stoppage would be if literally everyone who could do the job quit tomorrow and no work in that area would be done for a whole week required to replace the group, then an employer can afford to be much more cavalier.  That is the situation for the places where armies of adjuncts exist to teach general education requirements.  Having a work stoppage for a week would be like having a weather event--unpleasant for the week with a lot of scrambling to get back on track, but hardly a killer in terms of the overall institution.

[Kron3007]

All I know is that it would have a single, powerful union.

You don't need a union if most of the workers are actually hard to replace because:

a) specific skills are needed that cannot be acquired by most humans of average intelligence in weeks/months.  Most graduate educated adjuncts already meet this requirement.

b) a critical mass of the qualified people share the same criteria for being employed in terms of minimum pay, benefits, and working conditions.  As Mahagonny has identified on other threads, graduate educated adjuncts in certain fields span too wide a range for this to be applicable.

c) the work cannot be adjusted so that some other mechanism will meet the same goals without the workers or at least the same number of workers.  Automation often plays a role outside academia.  Inside academia, options include having one huge lecture section with smaller group discussion guided by student facilitators (in classroom or online) , eliminating/changing general education requirements that vary from institution to institution anyway, having standalone institutions/programs that don't claim to be colleges yet will provide desirable education and training, or simply limiting student enrollment to what constitutes a comfortable level of staffing consistent with natural staff turnover.

d) the number of people qualified and willing to do the offered jobs is below or roughly equivalent with the number of jobs available.  Again, when far more qualified people want the jobs than jobs exist, then the employer can be more cavalier regarding any one individual or groups of specific individuals.  When keeping enough people happy enough to stay employed at a given employer to actually get the work done becomes a problem, then employers are much less cavalier about general working conditions. 

When being confident that the only true work stoppage would be if literally everyone who could do the job quit tomorrow and no work in that area would be done for a whole week required to replace the group, then an employer can afford to be much more cavalier.  That is the situation for the places where armies of adjuncts exist to teach general education requirements.  Having a work stoppage for a week would be like having a weather event--unpleasant for the week with a lot of scrambling to get back on track, but hardly a killer in terms of the overall institution.

May not "need" a union, but would benefit.  Why else would my faculty unions exist?  We meet all your criteria , and have tenure, yet decided to unionize.  The fact is that we have better bargaining power as a unit than individuals.

[aside]

I don't know what else to say. I think you have a really skewed view of tenured faculty. And again, I say this as an ex-adjunct who became tenure track.

The question posed was not what the typical person with tenure is like, but what the more selfish among them is like. If you want to say I have a skewed view of tenured faculty, then show that there aren't some with those attitudes. You won't convince me, but I'll read if you go to the trouble.

Pedanticromantic, some of us have told Mahagonny here (or perhaps in another venue) that his experiences are not universal, that the concept of tenure is not the driving force behind "adjunctification," that the tenured faculty does not have the power to effect change on the scale that he envisions it might, etc.  Saying these things to him does not change his experiences, nor does it change his perception and opinions of his experiences, nor should it necessarily do the latter.  He says he has been treated poorly by tenured faculty, and I believe him.  I wish he did not generalize from those experiences and paint tenure and tenured faculty with a broad brush as villains.  Personally, I hope he gets the benefits he desires, whether that comes through a union or other means.  I wish I could wield my tenure like a professorial superhero and make that happen for him.  But, as you and I know, that's not possible.

Mahagonny, I would never try to show that there are not some tenured faculty with the attitudes you describe.  I am sorry that you have encountered them.