Covid adjunct nonrenewal: women & minorities

[marshwiggle]

The article that that OP linked to begins with a profile of someone who got a PhD at Princeton. I do not worry about someone who moves through a costly job credentialing program with very high barriers to entry while remaining willfully ignorant of market demand for such a job in their native land.

If there's not a name for this already, I propose something like "Golden Ticket Syndrome".

[Wahoo Redux]

I look forward to your article, Wahoo. Not to be a nudge, but if you use your real name, your identity here will become evident. But that may be fine with you. You've been honest, nothing to live down. I'll be as discreet as I can.
We may not always agree but I respect that you try to do something and you push back, with arguments, against people who, in your analysis, have the wrong idea.

Thanks man.  Yeah, I might out myself but not a biggie, honestly.  There are only a few of us here anyway and I'm not all that exciting.  And it would take some investigation in part because, as I have pointed out ad mauseam, there's a lot of material on the subject out there. 

We'll even see if this approach does any good.  Certainly press coverage makes a difference in a lot of instances. 

I've also nudged my congress-people (I posted a link sometime past), rejoined my discipline association (with a note about what I think they should do), and have signed petitions.

None of these will impress the doom and gloom crowd, but in our culture these are some of the ways we get things done.

You know, I'm not the only one that could do these things.  Everyone here is a writer, has a professional association, and a congress person (not to mention Twitter and Facebook). 

And no, Polly, my job is not in jeopardy.  I'm part of the business writing faculty, and also a creative writing and literature instructor, in a department with several retirements on the horizon.  I'll be just fine, thank you.

[marshwiggle]

We'll even see if this approach does any good.  Certainly press coverage makes a difference in a lot of instances. 

I've also nudged my congress-people (I posted a link sometime past), rejoined my discipline association (with a note about what I think they should do), and have signed petitions.

None of these will impress the doom and gloom crowd, but in our culture these are some of the ways we get things done.

To make an anlogy to the climate change situation, would someone selling their oceanfront property be evidence of them being in the "doom and gloom" group? And would one avoid being in that group by instead lobbying the government for sandbags?

[mahagonny]

We'll even see if this approach does any good.  Certainly press coverage makes a difference in a lot of instances. 

I've also nudged my congress-people (I posted a link sometime past), rejoined my discipline association (with a note about what I think they should do), and have signed petitions.

None of these will impress the doom and gloom crowd, but in our culture these are some of the ways we get things done.

To make an anlogy to the climate change situation, would someone selling their oceanfront property be evidence of them being in the "doom and gloom" group? And would one avoid being in that group by instead lobbying the government for sandbags?

Pardon the bluntness, Marshwiggle, but stupid metaphor. No one has to live in that oceanfront property. No one wants to take the risk, the property is vacant, so what.
But someone has to teach freshmen students how to write a paragraph. If we think we're entitled to their doing it for free, we deserve getting what we paid for. And we're taking good money from the students, which is not reputable.
(This is for the readers. I don't expect Marshwiggle to change tacks. Apparently the rudder on that sailboat is glued down.)

[Wahoo Redux]

We'll even see if this approach does any good.  Certainly press coverage makes a difference in a lot of instances. 

I've also nudged my congress-people (I posted a link sometime past), rejoined my discipline association (with a note about what I think they should do), and have signed petitions.

None of these will impress the doom and gloom crowd, but in our culture these are some of the ways we get things done.

To make an anlogy to the climate change situation, would someone selling their oceanfront property be evidence of them being in the "doom and gloom" group? And would one avoid being in that group by instead lobbying the government for sandbags?

So...Marshy, people aren't aware and working on climate change?  This awareness didn't come from the media?

We see certain stupid politicians denying the phenomenon because of political reasons, and we see their stupid followers following along in their stupidity.

Where do you see yourself?

[marshwiggle]

We'll even see if this approach does any good.  Certainly press coverage makes a difference in a lot of instances. 

I've also nudged my congress-people (I posted a link sometime past), rejoined my discipline association (with a note about what I think they should do), and have signed petitions.

None of these will impress the doom and gloom crowd, but in our culture these are some of the ways we get things done.

To make an anlogy to the climate change situation, would someone selling their oceanfront property be evidence of them being in the "doom and gloom" group? And would one avoid being in that group by instead lobbying the government for sandbags?

So...Marshy, people aren't aware and working on climate change?  This awareness didn't come from the media?

We see certain stupid politicians denying the phenomenon because of political reasons, and we see their stupid followers following along in their stupidity.

Where do you see yourself?

The point is that even the most optomistic estimates of action on climate change will still result in further ocean level rises before equilibrium is reached. If those estimates suggest a certain property will be below sea level, is it "doom and gloom" to admit that and sell the property, or should a person be "optimistic" and lobby for sandbags, because maybe someday they'll figure out how to reverse climate change and all of these properties can be SAVED!!!!!

[Wahoo Redux]

We'll even see if this approach does any good.  Certainly press coverage makes a difference in a lot of instances. 

I've also nudged my congress-people (I posted a link sometime past), rejoined my discipline association (with a note about what I think they should do), and have signed petitions.

None of these will impress the doom and gloom crowd, but in our culture these are some of the ways we get things done.

To make an anlogy to the climate change situation, would someone selling their oceanfront property be evidence of them being in the "doom and gloom" group? And would one avoid being in that group by instead lobbying the government for sandbags?

So...Marshy, people aren't aware and working on climate change?  This awareness didn't come from the media?

We see certain stupid politicians denying the phenomenon because of political reasons, and we see their stupid followers following along in their stupidity.

Where do you see yourself?

The point is that even the most optomistic estimates of action on climate change will still result in further ocean level rises before equilibrium is reached. If those estimates suggest a certain property will be below sea level, is it "doom and gloom" to admit that and sell the property, or should a person be "optimistic" and lobby for sandbags, because maybe someday they'll figure out how to reverse climate change and all of these properties can be SAVED!!!!!

Yes Marshy, your points are not subtle.

My point is that people will work for change if they are sufficiently motivated and informed. 

You do know that science is actually looking for ways to reverse AGW, right?  We and they know it will not happen quickly, but that does not mean that people simply give up.  A lot of good can come from working against the odds. 

Gloom and doom types, for some weird reason, don't want to acknowledge that.

[marshwiggle]

My point is that people will work for change if they are sufficiently motivated and informed. 

You do know that science is actually looking for ways to reverse AGW, right?  We and they know it will not happen quickly, but that does not mean that people simply give up.  A lot of good can come from working against the odds. 

By the  most optimistic estimates, stopping global warming is a few decades away at best. Reversing global warming, if possible, will require decades beyond that.  Sandbags can protect a property against flooding for days, or perhaps weeks at most.

The scale of the problem in time and resources dictates whether a given measure is potentially useful or a ridiculous waste of time and resources which are then not available for other places where they may have had a chance of success.

Gloom and doom types, for some weird reason, don't want to acknowledge that.

Many people who some might call "gloom and doom types", in my experience, are people who want the finite resources available deployed where they can do the most good, rather than simply being squandered on hopeless cases.

[apl68]

I think that the point marshwiggle is trying to make is the one summed up in the old saying, "It's hard to drain the swamp when you're up to your rear end in alligators." 

Most universities in principal want more diverse faculties.  The obvious way to do that would be to hire a significant number of diverse tenure-track faculty.  But for some years now most departments have had a hard time hiring ANY new TT faculty, owing to long-term structural challenges.  They can only try to change the makeup of their departments through the frustratingly slow process of trying to take diversity into account in new hires to replace retirees--when they even can. 

Failing that, they can try to make their adjuncts more diverse.  That gets more diverse teachers in front of students, but in an inferior academic status that doesn't really help the department's overall image.  And now even this measure is a problem, as the COVID-19 crisis is causing the swamp to flood and the alligators to multiply.

[mahagonny]

Gloom and doom types, for some weird reason, don't want to acknowledge that.

Many people who some might call "gloom and doom types", in my experience, are people who want the finite resources available deployed where they can do the most good, rather than simply being squandered on hopeless cases.

I'm getting it now. If money grew on trees, Polly_Mer would let the adjuncts have some of it.

[mahagonny]

Failing that, they can try to make their adjuncts more diverse. That gets more diverse teachers in front of students, but in an inferior academic status that doesn't really help the department's overall image.  And now even this measure is a problem, as the COVID-19 crisis is causing the swamp to flood and the alligators to multiply.

If all academic departments across the USA were to declare, en masse 'sure as hell, we use adjuncts. They're good people, and we depend on them' then it would be possible to advance the cause of diversity, out loud, and get credit for doing it. Of course, the adjuncts themselves would deserve the credit, but at least the public would be reading the truth about how the work is getting done. As it is they're all saying 'what..??....adjuncts...sure, we use a couple but only to fill in for sabbatical. And they're all wealthy. I know each of them personally. And we don't use a lot of them like those for-profit degree mills. Now let's talk about something else.'

Maybe we could do this: Say 'sure it's the adjunct faculty who are diverse, but it's the tenure track who should get the credit, because we are the people who hire the adjuncts.' That way you can keep the important people looking good.

[Hibush]

Maybe we could do this: Say 'sure it's the adjunct faculty who are diverse, but it's the tenure track who should get the credit, because we are the people who hire the adjuncts.' That way you can keep the important people looking good.

You may be on to something here. /s

Here's wishing your department enough credit to spread around so that everyone looks good.

[mahagonny]

Maybe we could do this: Say 'sure it's the adjunct faculty who are diverse, but it's the tenure track who should get the credit, because we are the people who hire the adjuncts.' That way you can keep the important people looking good.

You may be on to something here. /s

Here's wishing your department enough credit to spread around so that everyone looks good.

Our university and department do not have the type of people running them who would say 'the adjunct faculty are a strong asset. Come here and study with them.' They would certainly say to us in email messages how much they appreciate us, but that's different. That's not something they show the public. However if they were the only ones doing it that way, they might reconsider. Not to be overbearing, but that's why I posted this:

If all academic departments across the USA were to declare, en masse 'sure as hell, we use adjuncts. They're good people, and we depend on them' then it would be possible to advance the cause of diversity, out loud, and get credit for doing it. Of course, the adjuncts themselves would deserve the credit, but at least the public would be reading the truth about how the work is getting done. As it is they're all saying 'what..??....adjuncts...sure, we use a couple but only to fill in for sabbatical. And they're all wealthy. I know each of them personally. And we don't use a lot of them like those for-profit degree mills. Now let's talk about something else.'

[mahagonny]

Here's another 'we're going to capitalize on the momentum from recent events/demonstrating by spending money to make sure we're talking about all things racial' article.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/60-Colleges-Will-Join-Forces/248976

Plans include

"He's started a review of his district's relationship with the Los Angeles County sheriff's department. He's discussing ways to diversify the curriculum with faculty leaders and the possibility of requiring students to take an ethnic-studies course. And he said his campuses will suspend classes on several occasions next academic year to hold teach-ins focused on racial equity.'

and

"With the help of USC's climate surveys, Jeffery said, she'll make assessment her biggest priority. She doesn't want her college to just talk the talk. Did a particular policy change actually result in students' feeling more welcome on campus? Did revised hiring guidelines raise the number of Black and Latina/o faculty and staff members in subject areas where they're traditionally underrepresented, like science and mathematics?

Jeffery wants to get as many faculty and staff members participating in the 12-month USC curriculum as possible...'

Obviously, as usual, 'faculty' means full time faculty. So probably what will happen is the tenure track faculty, who are 61% white, are going to put their heads together to address lack of diversity among their ranks, by discussing it more, while the adjunct faculty, who are already diverse, will continue dropping in the teach their course and speeding away to their next gig, and not counting in any assessment of how diverse the CC's are. Ironic, and also typical.

Higher ed is its own problem, being unable to admit that it loves disenfranchised migrant labor. Of course they know it's a dog and pony show. Business as usual will be basically undisrupted.