CUNY Adjuncts Refusing to Teach Spring 2020

[polly_mer]

https://tbnt.ws.gc.cuny.edu
@AdjunctRefusal on Twitter

From the FAQ

Don't you think you're lucky you even have a job?

No, actually—we don't.

This will be something to watch unfold since it's voluntary and not part of a union action.

[mahagonny]

Every time I see you posting about unions I expect it to be a bunch of B.S. Then again, every time I see a duck I expect it to quack. Just how I am.

I can quit my union if I want and still work there. Voluntary? Unions happen because people face the scorn and retaliation of administration. You can't get more voluntary than that.

[mahagonny]

...it could be that the strikers would be acting independently of the union though, for this reason:. From what I've been seeing in the news about SUNY, they have a union including both full time and part time together, and the part timers have felt neglected by the union. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Worth watching.

[polly_mer]

The union contract is now public and people remain angry at the union ignoring the demands: https://cunystruggle.org/2019/10/24/far-short-of-7k-the-moa-explained/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Wahoo Redux]

Well...I've thought for a long time that this is exactly what the adjuncts should do.  The adjunct army could cripple higher ed if this catches on...but it probably won't.

A big part of the adjunct problem is that good, well-qualified people will teach for peanuts along side lousy, unqualified people who are just credentialed enough to stand in front of a classroom and nothing more----colleges have no incentive for making adjuncts anything but adjuncts, even when (as in our school paper) the problem is profiled in a very public manner. 

To really make the point they should look for other careers, but in many cases teaching college as an adjunct does not necessarily qualify one from doing anything but teaching college as an adjunct.

[mahagonny]

A big part of the adjunct problem is that good, well-qualified people will teach for peanuts along side lousy, unqualified people who are just credentialed enough to stand in front of a classroom and nothing more----colleges have no incentive for making adjuncts anything but adjuncts, even when (as in our school paper) the problem is profiled in a very public manner. 

The tenure track needs to make adjuncts out to be inferior, or at least, let the perception exist without disrupting it. Otherwise their pay and path to ultimate job security can't be justified. It is a system that undermines itself.

[polly_mer]

The Twitter accounts related to this issue are not being kind to the IHE article: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/10/24/cuny-contract-deal-means-big-raise-adjuncts

The nicest comment was along the lines of: perhaps talk to more than just the union president and chancellor regarding the contract.

[polly_mer]

A big part of the adjunct problem is that good, well-qualified people will teach for peanuts along side lousy, unqualified people who are just credentialed enough to stand in front of a classroom and nothing more----colleges have no incentive for making adjuncts anything but adjuncts, even when (as in our school paper) the problem is profiled in a very public manner. 

The tenure track needs to make adjuncts out to be inferior, or at least, let the perception exist without disrupting it. Otherwise their pay and path to ultimate job security can't be justified. It is a system that undermines itself.

It's generally not the tenure track folks who are promoting the idea that the adjuncts are inferior.  The question still remains why people agree to do all that work for so little pay, especially for something like first-year comp that is incredibly labor intensive when done right.  Good, true volunteers exist who love the work and don't need the money.  Good people who are spending a year or so getting experience while accepting low pay as the trade-off for OJT exist. 

However, it's entirely possible to be staffing the checkbox general eds with checkbox faculty and that's good enough all around.  Those folks might rise to the occasion if they had a full-time job, but it's pretty clear in some cases that those employees are checking the boxes to have few complaints from students who want easy classes to check the gen ed requirements. 

I have a lot of respect for the 7korstrike people at CUNY because they do need to either formally strike or informally cause a disruption to get the price up.  Or, CUNY will be doing something interesting to address a lack of cheap, good enough labor in terms of requirements waivers, limiting admissions, or partnering with other institutions for otherwise empty seats.

[Wahoo Redux]

A big part of the adjunct problem is that good, well-qualified people will teach for peanuts along side lousy, unqualified people who are just credentialed enough to stand in front of a classroom and nothing more----colleges have no incentive for making adjuncts anything but adjuncts, even when (as in our school paper) the problem is profiled in a very public manner. 

The tenure track needs to make adjuncts out to be inferior, or at least, let the perception exist without disrupting it. Otherwise their pay and path to ultimate job security can't be justified. It is a system that undermines itself.

I personally have never run into this.  Most TT folks I know do respect those adjuncts who deserve respect. 

Many adjuncts do all the things that TT folks do----publish, service, teach well, earn terminal degrees----but there are a number of adjuncts who, as Polly says, simply check a box-----unqualified (some wouldn't have the qualifications to teach high school), not good at their jobs, never publish more than a post on Facebook.  The latter folks do not have anyone's respect, even the people who hire them.  These people have jobs because they are cheap and expendable.

This is why maybe an adjunct march is good.  The adjunct army is bad for everyone.  We are withering our own educational systems.  Gen eds are far too important to simply be box-checking classes.

[marshwiggle]

Well...I've thought for a long time that this is exactly what the adjuncts should do.  The adjunct army could cripple higher ed if this catches on...but it probably won't.

A big part of the adjunct problem is that good, well-qualified people will teach for peanuts along side lousy, unqualified people who are just credentialed enough to stand in front of a classroom and nothing more----colleges have no incentive for making adjuncts anything but adjuncts, even when (as in our school paper) the problem is profiled in a very public manner. 

I've challenged Mahagonny on this before; how would you propose measuring teaching quality to identify good and bad instructors? And would you make decisions based on that mandatory?

To really make the point they should look for other careers, but in many cases teaching college as an adjunct does not necessarily qualify one from doing anything but teaching college as an adjunct.

They shouldn't be looking for other careers to "make a point"; they should be looking for other careers because they aren't satisfied with the ones they have. It's not a negotiating tactic; it's moving on with life.

[polly_mer]

Well...I've thought for a long time that this is exactly what the adjuncts should do.  The adjunct army could cripple higher ed if this catches on...but it probably won't.

A big part of the adjunct problem is that good, well-qualified people will teach for peanuts along side lousy, unqualified people who are just credentialed enough to stand in front of a classroom and nothing more----colleges have no incentive for making adjuncts anything but adjuncts, even when (as in our school paper) the problem is profiled in a very public manner. 

I've challenged Mahagonny on this before; how would you propose measuring teaching quality to identify good and bad instructors? And would you make decisions based on that mandatory?

OK, I'm in.

I look for alignment between the stated course goals and the activities in the class.  I've seen my fair share of syllabuses in which the learning goals were along the lines of "Upon completion of this course, successful students will be proficient in water skiing in a variety of bodies of water" and the activities were along the lines of "Week 1: climb trees near lakes; Week 2: rig up a rope swing in trees near lakes; Week 3: Spend time with an internal combustion engine..." and did not in any way, shape, or form add up to the learning goals listed.

I've done spot checks on duration of classes.  It's one thing to have the occasional discussion/lab/activity go so well and the next logical activity be too long that letting a session out a few minutes early is the reasonable thing to do.  However, routinely starting 10 minutes late and ending 10 minutes early for a MWF class means students are missing an hour of class per week, which is 15 hours per typical semester or about 1/3 of the instructional time.  Even just the 10 minutes per session for MWF is half an hour per week that adds up to weeks of instructional time over a 15-week term.

We can do spot checks on assignments and what occurs in the classroom.  Again, a syllabus indicating almost no reading, almost no writing, or indeed almost no work at all, just the one paper at the end and a final exam is not appropriate for many classes.  Academic freedom in teaching is a thing, but questions can be raised regarding college courses that appear to have no practice component with feedback when those courses are typically taught with voluminous feedback.  Even the European universities tend to have some mechanism for students to get feedback during the term (e.g., tutorials, self-graded problem sets) while still having the final grade be determined mostly by one graded item.

Good teaching comes in many forms and will have some variance depending on subject and level.

Bad teaching in the form of doing basically nothing that could help students learn is not all that hard to identify.

One can also do appropriate pre/post evaluations of student performance to gauge improvement.  It is entirely possible for students to start at H performance, bring it up to a D with a lot of very good teaching, and have that course be a success, even though the grade distribution isn't fabulous.  Those are some of the hardest classes to teach, but are areas where we need the best teachers.  Students who start good and become better generally rise to the occasion with a good enough teacher.

In some situations, we might find that certain courses are teaching no one anything and could be eliminated.  I was stunned to find that in regards to one of our required classes; the students who passed generally started the class able to pass the final assessment; those who failed generally showed no improvement, even when they diligently showed up every day and made a valiant effort at the practice work that included tutoring and attending office hours.

[mahagonny]

A big part of the adjunct problem is that good, well-qualified people will teach for peanuts along side lousy, unqualified people who are just credentialed enough to stand in front of a classroom and nothing more----colleges have no incentive for making adjuncts anything but adjuncts, even when (as in our school paper) the problem is profiled in a very public manner. 

The tenure track needs to make adjuncts out to be inferior, or at least, let the perception exist without disrupting it. Otherwise their pay and path to ultimate job security can't be justified. It is a system that undermines itself.

I personally have never run into this.  Most TT folks I know do respect those adjuncts who deserve respect. 

Many adjuncts do all the things that TT folks do----publish, service, teach well, earn terminal degrees----but there are a number of adjuncts who, as Polly says, simply check a box-----unqualified (some wouldn't have the qualifications to teach high school), not good at their jobs, never publish more than a post on Facebook.  The latter folks do not have anyone's respect, even the people who hire them.  These people have jobs because they are cheap and expendable.

They should have the respect of the TT for doing the job they are (barely) paid for. Teaching the class in a satisfactory way. Publishing is not part of the job. An adjunct should not be expected to be qualified for a job (TT) that someone else, not himself, has.
Traditionally, adjuncts have been identified as practitioners in the field, the business. Artists, lawyers, chemists et al. They are not there for research. They may not have the terminal degree, but they know the field. They work in it. That's how they stay current. Some of the weakest adjuncts I've seen are good old boys from the faculty club. PhD, but not in the field in which they are hired to adjunct. Tenured through another department. And they certainly never published in that field. And now everybody's getting their PhD. It's not as rare as it was.

[mahagonny]

I have a lot of respect for the 7korstrike people at CUNY because they do need to either formally strike or informally cause a disruption to get the price up.  Or, CUNY will be doing something interesting to address a lack of cheap, good enough labor in terms of requirements waivers, limiting admissions, or partnering with other institutions for otherwise empty seats.

And how about the mythical hordes of adjuncts who works alongside these strikers who have a full time job and don't need the money and would, in theory, bust the strike by working? You respect this person also?

It's generally not the tenure track folks who are promoting the idea that the adjuncts are inferior.  The question still remains why people agree to do all that work for so little pay,

One reaction to the scenario would be not disrespect, but gratitude. But the tenure culture usually isn't thinking about what it deserves. Only about what it needs and wants for its own success, and why that should be everyone's priority.

[marshwiggle]

I have a lot of respect for the 7korstrike people at CUNY because they do need to either formally strike or informally cause a disruption to get the price up.  Or, CUNY will be doing something interesting to address a lack of cheap, good enough labor in terms of requirements waivers, limiting admissions, or partnering with other institutions for otherwise empty seats.

And how about the mythical hordes of adjuncts who works alongside these strikers who have a full time job and don't need the money and would, in theory, bust the strike by working? You respect this person also?

You mean the people with full-time jobs (i.e. who the positions are advertised for) who would bust the "strike" (which is not supported by the union and therefore illegal) by working (i.e. doing what they agreed to do int their contracts)?

I fully support people who feel that their job is unsatisfactory and quit or don't re-apply. If there is no-one willing to work under those conditions, the conditions will change. People shouldn't base their own happiness on the actions of other people whose actions they cannot control.

[mahagonny]

I have a lot of respect for the 7korstrike people at CUNY because they do need to either formally strike or informally cause a disruption to get the price up.  Or, CUNY will be doing something interesting to address a lack of cheap, good enough labor in terms of requirements waivers, limiting admissions, or partnering with other institutions for otherwise empty seats.

And how about the mythical hordes of adjuncts who works alongside these strikers who have a full time job and don't need the money and would, in theory, bust the strike by working? You respect this person also?

You mean the people with full-time jobs (i.e. who the positions are advertised for) who would bust the "strike" (which is not supported by the union and therefore illegal) by working (i.e. doing what they agreed to do int their contracts)?

I fully support people who feel that their job is unsatisfactory and quit or don't re-apply. If there is no-one willing to work under those conditions, the conditions will change. People shouldn't base their own happiness on the actions of other people whose actions they cannot control.

Well looks we've found that fault line between you and Polly. Solidarity is a bitch isn't it?