When Should/Can An Adjunct Speak Out?

[marshwiggle]

Some interesting answers thus far.
Common areas hangouts: do you ever walk in on a conversation about national politics in which your views would, let's just say, not blend with the mood in the room? Or, worse still, does that ever happen and then you hear what you consider to be an uninformed view that echoes around the room? What would you do, say hello politely and move on? Sometimes I feel like saying nothing when that happens.

Honest question; no snark intended: How is this different from lots of social situations?

Whether it be with family, work colleagues, or other social groups, I (probably like many people) tend to keep a lot of my views to myself. As long as you're going to have to interact with people in an ongoing situation, it's not worth making those situations potentially awkward.

Was it Ann Landers or someone like that who said to never discuss sex, religion,or politics? It's nothing new.

Part of the reason Twitter can be so nasty is that people don't have to face the people they flame every day. In fact, they can even block them. On here, because people are from all over the world and it's pseudonymous, if I have a strong disagreement with someone, it's not something to worry about because we will probably never meet in person, and even if we happened to meet, we wouldn't necessarily know that we had.

So even without having the potential of job loss on the table, there are lots of reasons why expressing unpopular ideas may not be worth it in lots of situations.

[mahagonny]

Some interesting answers thus far.
Common areas hangouts: do you ever walk in on a conversation about national politics in which your views would, let's just say, not blend with the mood in the room? Or, worse still, does that ever happen and then you hear what you consider to be an uninformed view that echoes around the room? What would you do, say hello politely and move on? Sometimes I feel like saying nothing when that happens.

Honest question; no snark intended: How is this different from lots of social situations?

Lots of reasons that are all compound of one situation, the fact that your employment expires automatically in four months and they can choose to not rehire you for any reason or no reason.

So even without having the potential of job loss on the table, there are lots of reasons why expressing unpopular ideas may not be worth it in lots of situations.

It's gone beyond that stage. Silence gives consent. Therefore, these days, if you walk in on a conversation wherein everyone believes our attachment to white supremacy killed George Floyd, you not only have to refrain from giving unpopular views, you have to tacitly approve nutty ones.

When there's a common hangout area, and you never drop by, you're not 'making the scene.'

From what I've found out about you on the forum here, your views are right of center on many things and wouldn't blend at all in academia. However, it also sounds like you've got a strong union protecting you. I have a union too, but the union can't do anything about offloading some of our work on to a full timer. Not even when the students don't like it. The union can't do anything about how the department chair decides to promote and advertise us to the students. Yes the chair is far left. No secret being made of that.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Is there any actual evidence that adjuncts have been let go for expressing unpopular political opinions in front of colleagues?

[mahagonny]

Is there any actual evidence that adjuncts have been let go for expressing unpopular political opinions in front of colleagues?

Of course. Our chair tells us all the time that that's how they do it. It's all in the faculty handbook. Heh heh.

[end snark] If you google around, I don't know where it is, but you will find people who decided to conceal their Christian faith until after they got tenure. A number of them Black Americans. So the perception that you need to fit in in order to keep working is common. And as we discussed yesterday, that's what I am intending to study here. How people feel day to day in the workplace and at home on the internet or out socially, or writing a letter to the local newspaper, as a taxpayer, about how you think the state university is doing in its decision-making. All in relation to future, current job prospects, while trying to be themselves, have a little dignity, instead of hiding.
See, everything is treated as deadly serious when it's about getting tenure, because tenure is considered to be the fortification of higher education and its future for all of us, or for all of us who count. And everything is seen as not serious, or consequential when it's about the adjunct world.

And true to form, the toxic fora bully never fails to show up immediately and try to make the whole conversation about suspecting the adjunct of making poor life choices. And then pretend people are coming here for permission to change careers.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Is there any actual evidence that adjuncts have been let go for expressing unpopular political opinions in front of colleagues?

Of course. Our chair tells us all the time that that's how they do it. It's all in the faculty handbook. Heh heh.

[end snark] If you google around, I don't know where it is, but you will find people who decided to conceal their Christian faith until after they got tenure. A number of them Black Americans. So the perception that you need to fit in in order to keep working is common. And as we discussed yesterday, that's what I am intending to study here. How people feel day to day in the workplace and at home on the internet or out socially, or writing a letter to the local newspaper, as a taxpayer, about how you think the state university is doing in its decision-making. All in relation to future, current job prospects, while trying to be themselves, have a little dignity, instead of hiding.
See, everything is treated as deadly serious when it's about getting tenure, because tenure is considered to be the fortification of higher education and its future for all of us, or for all of us who count. And everything is seen as not serious, or consequential when it's about the adjunct world.

And true to form, the toxic fora bully never fails to show up immediately and try to make the whole conversation about suspecting the adjunct of making poor life choices. And then pretend people are coming here for permission to change careers.

Who said anything about poor life choices or permission to change careers? Why is it bullying to ask if there is any evidence out there to support the argument of this thread? (I'll add that you didn't actually provide any evidence, beyond a vague suggestion to "google around")

[mahagonny]

The toxic fora bully is not you, sun worshiper. Although there can be bully enablers. I recommend that you refrain from becoming one. The bully is Polly_Mer and she certainly knows it.

An invitation to quit your job because it has characteristics that are less desirable or undesirable is, first, so obviously an option that there's no legitimate, benign reason to mention it; second, it's not germane to an inquiry that starts out by asking 'what is it like for you to have your adjunct job.' The invitation to quit is  about the inviter's needs being met, namely, they are or have been in the business of peddling jobs that are practically unrecommendable, and also simultaneously in the business of advising others how to use academic employment. This means they have an interesting problem, but it's not my problem, it's not the adjunct's problem, and not germane to the discussion at hand, and repeatedly insisting on inserting it into discussions of adjunct experiences is trolling and bullying.

[polly_mer]

The one sentence question is "what's it like to have your adjunct job?"

Huh.

I'm certain we already had a thread for that discussion on which I had agreed to let the adjuncts have their own lounge.

When should someone speak up in general?  When there's something to contribute.  Fearing being called a name is not at all a reason to refrain from providing a necessary viewpoint to a discussion.

Academia has a thing called fit in addition to teaching, research, and service.  People who don't fit with their current departments are generally better off if they go somewhere they fit better.  That may be obvious, but apparently doesn't occur to people and needs to be explicitly stated.

No one owns a thread and attempting to be the gatekeeper tends to not go well, especially when the thread does not have a clear purpose agreed upon by everyone.

[lightning]

A few of our adjuncts are more vocal than the tenured faculty, and they complain a lot and call out BS. These adjuncts have 9-5 jobs in their field, and they see the PT work as supplemental income and/or satisfying work, where they see themselves as "giving back" or see adjuncting as a form of professional development for their 9-5 (being on the faculty, even part-time adjunct, makes them look good to their 9-5 employer).  Some of them like being around young people. Some of them like having access to the library and the fitness center/climbing walls/swimming pool. Some of them like professorial identity and the identification with a university (especially with the sports teams). They are really good at what they do, and the university needs them more than they need the university, so they speak out when they want. They don't care if they get fired. In fact, I think that's part of why they have so much fun at the job--they don't care if they get fired.

Of course, this is only possible if that adjunct has a good 9-5 job in the related field. Most adjuncts are probably not in that position. However, it does answer your question: when the adjunct is in a position where they don't need the $, and the uni needs the adjunct more than the adjunct needs the uni (like the adjuncts in some of our evening courses in the business school and IT college).

There are also adjuncts who work in academic units that are not toxic. Those units do exist, and those adjuncts are free to speak up in a manner consistent with speaking up at any job where the employees are "at-will" employees at a well-managed non-toxic private sector/non-profit/government job. (BTW, most jobs in North America are "at-will" jobs. I do concede that too many of them, but probably not the majority, are badly managed).

If an adjunct is at a toxic place, or worse, a toxic place that has financial problems, and the adjunct needs the job more than the university needs the adjunct, then I'm sorry to say that it's best to keep the trap shut.

[mahagonny]

Of course, lightning, now that you remind me, I have met a few of these folks in my travels. The ones I recall were either speaking out in such a way, and in such a setting, that they expected to be canned as a result, or they were already planning to give up on the place and made some parting criticisms. In the case of two or three in particular, I thought they were doing the place a service, because the criticisms they had were things that were going to be said anyway about the department out there in the wide world. So they were keeping the administrators in the loop.

Administrators are interested in practices that differ from the norm in unflattering, attention-getting ways. Dedicated teachers are interested in things that represent heartbreaking slippage in work conditions and opportunities for the right learning outcomes. And we find them, regularly. That's what the norm is.

It's interesting in a sad way that you note that the financial independence of the adjunct is what inclines him to sound off about unacceptable conditions, policies. Whereas, the presence of a union should have a similar effect, and certainly does, in my experience. Yet the institution claims they want you to have an abundance of income from other source(s), and also opposes unions. So what do they want? Simple. They want compliant, silent workers and the ostensible non-association with hard times among their employees. Yet they maintain tenure. Go figure.

[polly_mer]

It's interesting in a sad way that you note that the financial independence of the adjunct is what inclines him to sound off about unacceptable conditions, policies. Whereas, the presence of a union should have a similar effect, and certainly does, in my experience. Yet the institution claims they want you to have an abundance of income from other source(s), and also opposes unions. So what do they want? Simple. They want compliant, silent workers and the ostensible non-association with hard times among their employees. Yet they maintain tenure. Go figure.

This is an example of why I have to participate in these discussion to counter the wrong views that lead to assertions of actions that can't work to achieve the stated goals.

In most human organizations, the question is who matters and in what way.  People who are long-term invested in the institution, do the unpleasant tasks to keep the institution running, and are hard to replace for activities that matter to the long-term survival of the institution generally get heard in their areas of expertise, even if any one individual doesn't get exactly what that person wants at the time they want it. 

One "fun" thing that too few people learn before they become in charge of something is that never can one make a decision that satisfies everyone.   It's not that I want silent, compliant underlings in anything I do.  It's that the questions are:

(1) What is best for the thing I'm leading and how does that articulate with the bigger picture?  Few underlings know the big enough picture that their suggestions should be blindly adopted.

(2) Who will be angry enough to leave over this?  Anyone who is not angry enough to leave doesn't matter in most cases. 

(3) To what degree will that specific individual leaving matter?  If that specific someone leaving doesn't have a significant impact on the group, then that person can be ignored.

The professional fellows who are working in the field are being employed for their expertise as a practitioner and would be remiss for not speaking out on issues related to curriculum and socialization of novices in the field.  Professional fellows who are extremely hard to replace, are carrying a specific course per term and are truly part of the long-term faculty, even without tenure, can often negotiate their terms of employment to be substantially better than the official minimum.  The person from the state forensics lab, the sitting judge, the nurse who oversees practicums in community nursing every spring, the social worker who oversees practicums during winter quarter, and the engineer who teaches applied thermodynamics every fall are much different in standing than the English adjunct who is truly extra and can be replaced with less than an hour of phone calls.

The people who are not individually important have much less standing to speak and be heard, especially if what they have to say is along the lines of "I should be treated as more important" instead of something within their subject matter expertise.  Contingent positions that have practically no contract time exist specifically to be cut first when cutting is necessary.  The fact that someone has spent perhaps a decade in such a position doesn't change the fact that the position is classified as contingent because it is unnecessary to the greater functioning of the institution.

The only leverage a union has is shutting down normal operations if their demands aren't met.  If that's an empty threat because the union speaks for so few people that normal operations will not be crippled, but will instead just be a little different, then even the union doesn't matter.  If the union represents such diverse viewpoints that the union can't settle on 3-5 priorities, then the union is ineffective.

As lightning wrote, the question very much is who is more dependent on whom.  The people who really really need the job, but aren't vital to the functioning of the institution are in a much worse bargaining position than the people who are much more vital and much harder to replace by the institution.  One reason the general education folks are cut first is that general education doesn't put butts in seats the way that desirable majors do.  General education is like chain fast food; someone has to be working the kitchen, but even the best kitchen person in the world isn't what's driving business.  Having literally no one in the kitchen is a problem, but the chains are designed to continue to function even with a new novice in the kitchen every week.

Lacking sufficient faculty to deliver the majors for which students enroll is a big problem for an institution.  Having turnover in general education faculty who are unhappy with being treated as interchangeable cogs is not generally a problem, especially when those adjuncts  complain about being treated as relatively unimportant, but don't actually leave or stop doing their jobs as part of a strike. 

The question in many cases isn't tenure or no tenure for a given position.  The questions are (a) of what value is this particular position to the institution and (b) how hard is it to get another equally qualified person for the same contract deal?  When the answers are "very minor" and "easy if the phone lines are in service", then insisting on one's own importance will fall on deaf ears.  When the answers are "we can't offer the major without them" and "it took us three years last time we tried", then that person has much more leverage.

[mahagonny]

* Should a professional speak within that professional's expertise regarding the safety of working conditions or ability to do the job to an acceptable level, even if it means losing the next term assignment?  The ethics board in my professions would state a firm yes. The obligation of a professional is to ensure that the work can be done within the resources available or to turn down the contract as being unacceptable.

I don't believe you, and you can't make me. The ethics boards, if they say that and mean it, if, they are doing it without any reinforcement from you. If an instructor with a reasonable track record and decent training says 'this job can't be done acceptably in these conditions' you will replace him with another adjunct who isn't saying that. Your focus is 'how replaceable is the worker?' He may say 'I don't care how important I feel, but it looks as though, given these conditions, the student experience in my classroom is too subpar to be acceptable and you have taken your eye off the ball' then that is uninteresting to you as long as you think you can find a replacement. Also confirmed by your indefatigable style in trying to stifle unions. As others have noted here on the forum, you think you can throw academic standards to the free market. And you probably don't really care what happens to writing courses, humanities. The guy in the trenches doing the teaching has no input; he is silenced. You think you know it all already. And this pointless reiteration of your term 'professional fellows,' obviously attempting to sort faculty from a single employment tier into categories to undermine solidarity. Which would be dangerous if it weren't so hilarious. Do you actually think a part time adjunct could come to this forum and read you as a sober minded, trustworthy partner in conversation??
Looking for something here 'in defense of Polly_Mer' and here's the best I can do: I don't know that there's that much reason to single you out. It's just that we have bumped into each other on this forum and both of us are vocal. This low level of functioning you describe is most likely quite common.
I suggest rereading the thread. As Caracal pointed out, he does not consider it enough of a job (as in, integrated into the department long term, full time) where he is apt to see himself as relied upon to give the type of feedback that you claim you may rely on from an adjunct instructor. (Italic above) Another important piece.

[Stockmann]

* Should a professional speak within that professional's expertise regarding the safety of working conditions or ability to do the job to an acceptable level, even if it means losing the next term assignment?  The ethics board in my professions would state a firm yes.

"Acceptable" to whom? Your ethics board sounds very keen to recommend others put their jobs on the line, but I guess "acceptable level" is so vague that it pleases everyone and no one. Not least because there can be a vast gulf between ostensible "acceptable" standards and what will be accepted in practice - which goes both ways, employees may claim they walk on water and employers may claim that's the sort of standard they expect and demand, but either/both may settle for/offer a lot less and either/both may have completely unreasonable/unrealistic expectations.
To use a completely non-academic analogy, a cook at a restaurant may be of the professional opinion that cooking beef to the point of being well-done ruins the meat, but if the manager says the customer is always right and the customer wants his steak well-done, I do not believe the cook has any obligation to quit because management won't refuse to serve well-done steaks, nor to refuse to cook well-done steaks and get fired. I would still think this if the place advertised as uncompromising in its standards and if the customer claimed to be a connoiseur - and, for that matter, if the customer claimed to be a vegetarian, because the cook has presumably no control over how management chooses to advertise nor over what the customer chooses to order.
Adjuncts have an obligation to try to teach the course materials in good faith but speaking out about institutional issues (for instance, saying that admissions standards are clearly too lax) is above their pay grade and is rather something that is the tenured faculty's obligation. Unless of course they're also being hired as consultants or something on those institutional issues.
On a related issue mentioned by Caracal, of course it's icky to evaluate people on work they're not paid to do, and an adjunct would have no ethical obligation to do any service work, unless actually paid for it, although they may find it in their material interests to do it.

[Caracal]

* The obligation of a professional is to ensure that the work can be done within the resources available or to turn down the contract as being unacceptable.

As Caracal pointed out, he does not consider it enough of a job (as in, integrated into the department long term, full time) where he is apt to see himself as relied upon to give the type of feedback that you claim you may rely on from an adjunct instructor. (Italic above) Another important piece.

Actually, I'm not sure those two things are in opposition. If I thought I couldn't do an acceptable job under the conditions, I would quit. If I didn't have the ability to control course content and assessment for example, that would be unacceptable. Ditto for pressure to change grades and the like.

However, I'm a contractor. I have lots of opinions on the way things are set up, but nobody is asking or paying me to attend meetings and share them. I'm responsible for the classes I teach, not the overall structure they exist within.

[polly_mer]

* Should a professional speak within that professional's expertise regarding the safety of working conditions or ability to do the job to an acceptable level, even if it means losing the next term assignment?  The ethics board in my professions would state a firm yes. The obligation of a professional is to ensure that the work can be done within the resources available or to turn down the contract as being unacceptable.

I don't believe you, and you can't make me. The ethics boards, if they say that and mean it, if, they are doing it without any reinforcement from you.

I'm in engineering, remember?  You better damn well hope that engineers hold the line on what's acceptable both in the field building bridges and overseeing manufacture of medicines as well as in the classroom teaching the next generation of engineers.  I agree that many humanities folks talk a good game about ethical responsibilities and then completely ignore those responsibilities in their own lives.

Yes, practically, all those general education adjuncts on the humanities side will be replaced by someone who will do the job.  The problem with your union assertion is exactly someone who will say, "I'm not getting paid enough to do the whole job to a reasonable standard, but I will take the money and go through some motions".  If all the professionals truly did walk away from the crap jobs every time, then the jobs would either improve or go away.

Having people who are really important to the institution and are hard to replace with exactly the same title as people who are interchangeable cogs doing jobs that can safely be cut as soon as enrollment drops or cramming more students into a section is the reasonable choice is indeed a problem for the union.  Pointing out that problem is not a political maneuver; it's a reality that humanities faculty seem to overlook because they so seldom talk with other faculty. 

I personally was impacted as a TA by the humanities-dominated union that negotiated away the top in favor of the bare minimum.  That extra $50 per month to TA was a slap in the face, but all that the department could pay me since I had a graduate research fellowship that was already at the top of the TA scale and the engineering department needed all grad students to rotate through TAing to ensure enough coverage of the breakout groups/labs.  We did not have the same interests and I guarantee you that the professional fellows who are truly part time in the major department do not have the same interests as the truly term-to-term adjuncts in the general education pool.

The place where we keep butting heads is I know how things work and you have wishful thinking about how things could be different.  The current method isn't the only method, but, as we discussed at length soon after these new fora came on line, what you, Mahagonny, want is in the tiny minority and doesn't help anyone except that tiny minority who wants exactly what you want.

Many humanities adjuncts want full-time TT positions that are primarily teaching people who want to learn with a generous dollop of majors who will be around for four years of fabulous interaction.  Other humanities adjuncts definitely want a part-time position just teaching with no other responsibilities that complements the other activities in their lives and provides some extra money.

Many full-time research folks want good full-time teachers who focus on the huge undergrad intro and service-to-relevant-majors classes that need to be done well, but are a distraction from the research.  This is not at all the same as the checkbox general education courses that no one really cares about.  If someone really cared, then they would have full-time people teaching.

Administrators want excellent faculty in the majors that attract and retain students who will then go out, get good jobs, and send money back to their beloved alma mater.  In many majors, the best way to help acculturate the students is through judicious use of professional fellows and professional networks for co-ops, internships, and additional resources to ensure an up-to-date undergraduate education.

The union won't save jobs that go away as the contingency conditions are met.  Just ask the folks at CUNY: https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/9905-cuny-leaders-pressed-layoffs-adjuncts-professors-city-council

[mahagonny]

* The obligation of a professional is to ensure that the work can be done within the resources available or to turn down the contract as being unacceptable.

As Caracal pointed out, he does not consider it enough of a job (as in, integrated into the department long term, full time) where he is apt to see himself as relied upon to give the type of feedback that you claim you may rely on from an adjunct instructor. (Italic above) Another important piece.

Actually, I'm not sure those two things are in opposition. If I thought I couldn't do an acceptable job under the conditions, I would quit. If I didn't have the ability to control course content and assessment for example, that would be unacceptable. Ditto for pressure to change grades and the like.

However, I'm a contractor. I have lots of opinions on the way things are set up, but nobody is asking or paying me to attend meetings and share them. I'm responsible for the classes I teach, not the overall structure they exist within.

Yet if you are not responsible for the overall structure your job exists within in, you could also choose to continue doing it even after it the conditions become unacceptably poor, and still be ethical. Your task would then be to do it to the best of your ability within reason and assume that the employer accepts the results as good enough, or doesn't pay attention, or steals money, or does whatever they do, but it is not you doing it. It's not even you having an opportunity to find out about it. It's an obviously depressing scenario, but it is a solidly logical, realistic approach, and uses the same premise you named, that you are responsible only for your piece of the situation.
This is the situation many adjuncts are in currently, without financial security, without academic freedom, without a real work contract (Interthreaduality.) As well, anyone who's been doing this work awhile has probably seen adjunct faculty quit for these reasons, and as someone upthread noted, they may be the ones who sound off. They get replaced, and the supervisors then would say 'he wasn't the right fit for the institution.' Of course they wouldn't even say that much, because it's all hidden. Sometimes there actually is a testy exchange and word gets out about the dustup. It always blows over though. The danger for the school though might be that while they don't want to listen to these professional educators' impressions of the department, others may.