CUNY Adjuncts Refusing to Teach Spring 2020

[mahagonny]

We have new indoor tennis courts and a barely used campus shuttle system with shiny new vehicles.

Our VIP box at the football stadium has been refurbished even though the football team has had a series of lackluster seasons and generates no heat even when it has a good season.

We are losing tenure lines in virtually all departments while our enrollment stays fairly stable.

This is devaluing the teachers.

I've posted this before and will again: There are enough classes taught in virtually every discipline to justify an army of FT instructors and TT professors.   If admin is breaking up full time positions they are devaluing the work.

I see what's wrong with your school now. You need a new, high powered football coach and more promotion of sports events.

[apl68]

If an hourly counting were assigned by a part timer's union that actually had a lot of power, the professor might be able to say 'I graded 60% of the exams in the allotted time. Here are the ones I didn't get to in case someone is going to grade them. It's now time to for me to begin the next piece of the syllabus.' [Dropping the folder full of exams on the chair's desk.]

I think this just reinforces my point. I have no desire to do this, and I'm not going to do it. I made the syllabus and I designed the exams, so it would be fairly bizarre for me to act like I've just finished my shift and now I'm not going to do my grading. I'm not remotely interested in teaching in this way and I can't really understand why this would be a goal rather than making positions salaried.

This is one of the things I've always found awkward about unions for professionals; much of the language of unions (with "stewards" and "grievances") comes from the factory floor and doesn't really match a professional setting. And like an "hourly wage", it attempts to force any situation through a template which doesn't really fit.

To the person with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I agree with you that unions are a poor fit in a professional setting.  The problem is, the full-time professionals are being largely replaced with what amount to casual laborers--who are also not a good fit in a professional setting.  Yes, there is, and probably always has been, a place for a few part-timers around the edges to fill various needs.  But when institutions engage in the sort of widespread replacement of full-time professionals with part-time casual labor that other posters report seeing, they are inviting those growing numbers of laborers to see themselves as union material.  The universities have created this problem for themselves.

[Morris Zapp]

Something that hasn't been mentioned before is that if you get a School at a university or a department at a university where there are significantly more adjuncts (who are not PhD types with serious academic credentials) than FT TT faculty, they often manage to reshape the department, its mission and the expectations for students.

I've been in the position to hire adjuncts and often what we see from the get-go is some form of justification being made:
-So and so has been a teacher for 15 years so of course she can teach Education Pedagogy.  Teaching for 15 years is the same as having published in the field of education pedagogy.
-so and so has been on his city's budget committee for 10 years so of course he can teach budgeting and taxation in our MPA program.  Being on a budget committee is exactly the same as publishing and writing in the field of budget and taxation.
-So and so is an Army Lieutenant Colonel who served in Iraq!  That's exactly the same as someone who wrote a dissertation on terrorist finance.  He's actually been in the MidEast!  Think of the stories he can tell the students -- because that's what they're paying for.  To hell with introducing them to the relevant literature in the field.

You get enough of these people and political science becomes current events.  MBA courses become show and tell by some local dude who invented something that he sells on late night TV.  It's not even 'training' in place of education.  It's some weird amalgam of personal experience, a little self-help and lots of articles from The Economist! 
Our univ believes that the correct FT to adjunct ration is 20 percent to 80 percent so we are usually outnumbered by the practitioners, local celebrities, etc.  There's a point at which it is impossible to hold the line in favor of quality any more.
We don't live in a huge city, so the idea that there's going to be an extra person kicking around town with a PhD in literary theory doesn't hold.  After we've exploited the TT professor's wife for pennies bny hiring her as an adjunct, we've pretty well played that card.  So we get music theory which is actually music appreciation taught by the organist at church, etc. 

THe whole system is eventually going to crash and this is why. And yeah, any 'strike breakers' any university finds is basically just going to conform to the pattern described here.

[mahagonny]

Something that hasn't been mentioned before is that if you get a School at a university or a department at a university where there are significantly more adjuncts (who are not PhD types with serious academic credentials) than FT TT faculty, they often manage to reshape the department, its mission and the expectations for students.

I've been in the position to hire adjuncts and often what we see from the get-go is some form of justification being made:
-So and so has been a teacher for 15 years so of course she can teach Education Pedagogy.  Teaching for 15 years is the same as having published in the field of education pedagogy.
-so and so has been on his city's budget committee for 10 years so of course he can teach budgeting and taxation in our MPA program.  Being on a budget committee is exactly the same as publishing and writing in the field of budget and taxation.
-So and so is an Army Lieutenant Colonel who served in Iraq!  That's exactly the same as someone who wrote a dissertation on terrorist finance.  He's actually been in the MidEast!  Think of the stories he can tell the students -- because that's what they're paying for.  To hell with introducing them to the relevant literature in the field.

You get enough of these people and political science becomes current events.  MBA courses become show and tell by some local dude who invented something that he sells on late night TV.  It's not even 'training' in place of education.  It's some weird amalgam of personal experience, a little self-help and lots of articles from The Economist! 
Our univ believes that the correct FT to adjunct ration is 20 percent to 80 percent so we are usually outnumbered by the practitioners, local celebrities, etc.  There's a point at which it is impossible to hold the line in favor of quality any more.
We don't live in a huge city, so the idea that there's going to be an extra person kicking around town with a PhD in literary theory doesn't hold.  After we've exploited the TT professor's wife for pennies bny hiring her as an adjunct, we've pretty well played that card.  So we get music theory which is actually music appreciation taught by the organist at church, etc. 

THe whole system is eventually going to crash and this is why. And yeah, any 'strike breakers' any university finds is basically just going to conform to the pattern described here.

Well, in my field, some of the people with the attractive academic credentials have them because they had a reason to stay in school the longest: they were not particularly talented, developed or in demand as practitioners. They had plenty of time for school. They go on to become PhD's who get to create the new dumbed down curricula and mission, which the adjuncts who are active in the field hate, because it keeps the students' level low in relation to industry norms.
YMMV I suppose.

[tuxthepenguin]

Something that hasn't been mentioned before is that if you get a School at a university or a department at a university where there are significantly more adjuncts (who are not PhD types with serious academic credentials) than FT TT faculty, they often manage to reshape the department, its mission and the expectations for students.

I've been in the position to hire adjuncts and often what we see from the get-go is some form of justification being made:
-So and so has been a teacher for 15 years so of course she can teach Education Pedagogy.  Teaching for 15 years is the same as having published in the field of education pedagogy.
-so and so has been on his city's budget committee for 10 years so of course he can teach budgeting and taxation in our MPA program.  Being on a budget committee is exactly the same as publishing and writing in the field of budget and taxation.
-So and so is an Army Lieutenant Colonel who served in Iraq!  That's exactly the same as someone who wrote a dissertation on terrorist finance.  He's actually been in the MidEast!  Think of the stories he can tell the students -- because that's what they're paying for.  To hell with introducing them to the relevant literature in the field.

You get enough of these people and political science becomes current events.  MBA courses become show and tell by some local dude who invented something that he sells on late night TV.  It's not even 'training' in place of education.  It's some weird amalgam of personal experience, a little self-help and lots of articles from The Economist! 
Our univ believes that the correct FT to adjunct ration is 20 percent to 80 percent so we are usually outnumbered by the practitioners, local celebrities, etc.  There's a point at which it is impossible to hold the line in favor of quality any more.
We don't live in a huge city, so the idea that there's going to be an extra person kicking around town with a PhD in literary theory doesn't hold.  After we've exploited the TT professor's wife for pennies bny hiring her as an adjunct, we've pretty well played that card.  So we get music theory which is actually music appreciation taught by the organist at church, etc. 

THe whole system is eventually going to crash and this is why. And yeah, any 'strike breakers' any university finds is basically just going to conform to the pattern described here.

Yep. This is exactly what I've seen as well. It's the academic equivalent of painting over the stains in the carpet before selling your house. It's not like the person writing the check is going to notice.

[mahagonny]

So what would you folks who are on the same page about this slippage caused by hiring the underqualified be willing to give up in order to see improvement? Something other than unwanted service hours on your schedule, like for example, pay or promotions?

[marshwiggle]

Something that hasn't been mentioned before is that if you get a School at a university or a department at a university where there are significantly more adjuncts (who are not PhD types with serious academic credentials) than FT TT faculty, they often manage to reshape the department, its mission and the expectations for students.

I've been in the position to hire adjuncts and often what we see from the get-go is some form of justification being made:
-So and so has been a teacher for 15 years so of course she can teach Education Pedagogy.  Teaching for 15 years is the same as having published in the field of education pedagogy.

This is bad for two reasons;

• it's not using academics where they belong
• it's not using practitioners where they belong

A course on the history of the novel would be best taught by someone who had studied the history of the novel. A course on writing a novel would be best taught by someone who had published at least one novel. It is completely possible that someone well qualified for one would be unqualified for the other.

[mahagonny]

This is bad for two reasons;

• it's not using academics where they belong
• it's not using practitioners where they belong

A course on the history of the novel would be best taught by someone who had studied the history of the novel. A course on writing a novel would be best taught by someone who had published at least one novel. It is completely possible that someone well qualified for one would be unqualified for the other.

A little perspective helps. If you have my experience you also know that:
(1) Two people in the same field with both PhD and tenure, working in the same department, can have irreconcilably opposing views on what should be taught in a particular course, and
(2) The department can easily be stuck with both of them for another twenty years; whereas, an adjunct can usually be switched out for a new one, but only one person gets to be chair at a time, so someone with PhD and tenure may think the adjunct is a horrible fit while the present chair thinks he's fine.
(3) The two feuding tenured professors always agree on one thing: there should be more tenure track job offerings.

[Wahoo Redux]

So what would you folks who are on the same page about this slippage caused by hiring the underqualified be willing to give up in order to see improvement? Something other than unwanted service hours on your schedule, like for example, pay or promotions?

I would give up the new indoor tennis courts and the shuttle system.  Honestly, we really should get rid of our athletic department.  At some schools this idea would cause an uprising, but here we really could nuke varsity sports and it's likely no one would even notice.

I don't think we have to penalize the faculty any more than they have been already. 

[mahagonny]

So what would you folks who are on the same page about this slippage caused by hiring the underqualified be willing to give up in order to see improvement? Something other than unwanted service hours on your schedule, like for example, pay or promotions?

I would give up the new indoor tennis courts and the shuttle system.  Honestly, we really should get rid of our athletic department.  At some schools this idea would cause an uprising, but here we really could nuke varsity sports and it's likely no one would even notice.

I don't think we have to penalize the faculty any more than they have been already.

That's not gonna work. You don't have that power. If you approach them about giving up athletics or amenities, you're going to be talking with people who have the business perspective. Then the other riff, 'you don't know anything about how budgets work or why students choose a college.'

[Wahoo Redux]

So what would you folks who are on the same page about this slippage caused by hiring the underqualified be willing to give up in order to see improvement? Something other than unwanted service hours on your schedule, like for example, pay or promotions?

I would give up the new indoor tennis courts and the shuttle system.  Honestly, we really should get rid of our athletic department.  At some schools this idea would cause an uprising, but here we really could nuke varsity sports and it's likely no one would even notice.

I don't think we have to penalize the faculty any more than they have been already.

That's not gonna work. You don't have that power. If you approach them about giving up athletics or amenities, you're going to be talking with people who have the business perspective. Then the other riff, 'you don't know anything about how budgets work or why students choose a college.'

Granted on both counts.

Nevertheless, these are what I would see on the chopping block if I could.  I DO suspect this is the sort of thing, however, that parents, voters, and alumni will object to if they knew about it----at least some would.  I don't think that parents or students who are working extra shifts to send their children / themselves through school in our depressed, largely blue-collar community would be cool with the concept of a uni spending money on amenities while their teachers make $19K a year.  Someone will get on and counter that...but I think they are wrong, at least in our town.

We just need to get the word out.

Google "Adjunct employment 2019" and just see how many mainstream entries their are on the subject. 

[polly_mer]

So what would you folks who are on the same page about this slippage caused by hiring the underqualified be willing to give up in order to see improvement? Something other than unwanted service hours on your schedule, like for example, pay or promotions?

What the US as a whole is giving up is:

* the small, seriously underfunded institutions.  One reason they are closing is hiring many underqualified people doesn't work when enough students realize they have choices and vote with their feet.  Going to a mostly part-time model to save money usually means hiring literally the same individuals to teach essentially the same classes at a variety of institutions in the region, which results in the cheapest-to-the-student institution winning.  That is likely to be the community college with a majority of part-timers over the no-name 4-year institution with mostly full-timers, even when the no-name 4-year hasn't jumped on the adjunct-mostly bus.  The students who are serious about college will kill the little no-name institution by going to the CC for the first two years to knock out the gen eds and then transferring to the regional comprehensive for the two years of major classes or simply by going to a better school entirely.

* good community college education.  The students who have already been ripped off by their K-12 experiences also tend to attend the CCs with nearly exclusively part-time folks who tend to either revolving door as professionals who see the trap in the first year or remain because they are basically unqualified to teach at an institution with standards.

* the idea that a degree and gumption leads to one's desired outcome.  The strongest argument against the value of a liberal arts education is how many people are willing to take the crap adjuncting jobs (and not all adjuncting jobs are crap, but some definitely are) over doing something else that would qualify as professional and pay professional wages. All the death-marching folks who keep death-marching instead of striking or leaving are the ones propping up the system.  If they quit tomorrow and stayed out until the job was paid at a professional level worthy of one's education (however that would be measured), then the problem would be solved in the sense that no one is death marching.  However, many institutions would close with the result that fewer academic jobs would exist, but the ones that did remain would be better jobs.

Many places don't have an adjunctification problem (seriously, go look at the research).  The adjunctification problem that includes very low pay and hiring unqualified people willing to work for that pay is not "everywhere"; it's mostly community colleges and the institutions that pay lip service to general education/liberal arts and then don't follow through.

[Caracal]

* the idea that a degree and gumption leads to one's desired outcome.  The strongest argument against the value of a liberal arts education is how many people are willing to take the crap adjuncting jobs (and not all adjuncting jobs are crap, but some definitely are) over doing something else that would qualify as professional and pay professional wages. All the death-marching folks who keep death-marching instead of striking or leaving are the ones propping up the system.  If they quit tomorrow and stayed out until the job was paid at a professional level worthy of one's education (however that would be measured), then the problem would be solved in the sense that no one is death marching.  However, many institutions would close with the result that fewer academic jobs would exist, but the ones that did remain would be better jobs.

I'm going to try to avoid getting involved in this again, but at this point, I have almost no idea what you are talking about. What does the fairy small number of PHDs who adjunct have to do with the liberal arts in general? You might as well tell us that the strongest argument against engineering degrees is that Tesla has quality control problems.

Also this model you have of everyone making individual decisions because it will benefit the common good is just bizarre. You've created this imaginary category of "death marching adjuncts." As far as I can tell you aren't in this category if for any reason adjuncting is not a insane plan that will result in poverty. At this point, the category probably includes just Hamburger and four other people living in Brooklyn, so I can't see how these people clearing out is going to fix this problem, even if that was the way markets worked in the first place.

[marshwiggle]

Also this model you have of everyone making individual decisions because it will benefit the common good is just bizarre. You've created this imaginary category of "death marching adjuncts." As far as I can tell you aren't in this category if for any reason adjuncting is not a insane plan that will result in poverty. At this point, the category probably includes just Hamburger and four other people living in Brooklyn, so I can't see how these people clearing out is going to fix this problem, even if that was the way markets worked in the first place.

Apparently, Wahoo knows them all:

Nevertheless, these are what I would see on the chopping block if I could.  I DO suspect this is the sort of thing, however, that parents, voters, and alumni will object to if they knew about it----at least some would.  I don't think that parents or students who are working extra shifts to send their children / themselves through school in our depressed, largely blue-collar community would be cool with the concept of a uni spending money on amenities while their teachers make $19K a year. 

[mahagonny]

This is one of the things I've always found awkward about unions for professionals; much of the language of unions (with "stewards" and "grievances") comes from the factory floor and doesn't really match a professional setting. And like an "hourly wage", it attempts to force any situation through a template which doesn't really fit.

To the person with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I agree with you that unions are a poor fit in a professional setting.  The problem is, the full-time professionals are being largely replaced with what amount to casual laborers--who are also not a good fit in a professional setting.  Yes, there is, and probably always has been, a place for a few part-timers around the edges to fill various needs.  But when institutions engage in the sort of widespread replacement of full-time professionals with part-time casual labor that other posters report seeing, they are inviting those growing numbers of laborers to see themselves as union material.  The universities have created this problem for themselves.

The three of us -- let's talk to the tenure track faculty, who are the most unionized of any segment of the teaching workforce, and tell them why they need to get rid of their unions. Of course, it's undermining their dignity as professionals. Unions are for longshoreman, factory workers et al. Not people of their ilk.  They'll thank us once we explain it properly.