• Home
  • About Us
  • Guest Posts

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Why are Faculty Complicit in Creating a Disposable Workforce?

by Jennifer Ruth, English Department, Portland State University

The Modern Language Association (MLA) is under fire for not fighting hard enough against the adjunctification of the professoriate. An excellent piece in Inside Higher Ed criticizes the recent MLA report on doctoral programs for accommodating when it should challenge the trends that destroy PhDs’ prospects. In blog posts and in The Chronicle for Higher Education, another group calls for the MLA to consider a 4:1 salary ratio: the highest-paid person (the Association’s executive director) should be compensated no more than four times the lowest-paid person in the profession (the adjunct). The intent here, Marc Bousquet writes, is to “goose” the MLA leadership into action by forcing it to glimpse its ample-salaried self standing in disturbing proximity to the anorexic adjunct.

Taking the MLA to task makes sense. One of our biggest professional organizations, why is it helpless to stem—much less reverse—deprofessionalization? It’s not that it doesn’t take the problem seriously. As the people rising to its defense in the comment threads observe, the MLA has formed committees and organized panels on the topic. It has issued important policy recommendations (a recommended floor for adjunct wages, for example). Indeed, it is confusing to know what to think when you move from one person’s righteous denunciation of the organization’s foot-dragging to someone else’s list of the worthy steps it has taken.

Whatever the MLA’s record, the urge to hold somebody accountable is a good one. I hope that it indicates that we are sick-unto-death of distracting abstractions. Who can stand to hear the phrase “systemic forces” again? “Market forces” is even worse. However brilliant and even accurate it might be, another David Harvey-inspired argument about the impact on the university of the post-1970 neoliberal transformation of the global economy won’t help us. If anything these analyses contribute to a feeling of fatalism in which we assume any actions we could take will just be swept into the neoliberal tidal wave. Over the last few years, for example, the term “structural adjustment” has begun to replace “crisis.” While the former term is surely more honest when referring to deprofessionalization—how long can something continue and still claim to be a crisis?—it’s also chillingly impersonal. At least “crisis” suggested emotion and emotion suggests people. And I have the strong and unhappy conviction that if we want to effect change, we have to hold flesh-and-blood people accountable for what’s happened and what continues to happen.

The urge to hold specific people accountable is one that people understandably suppress. Nobody wants to blame people she might actually know for what is obviously a complicated national problem. One solution to this queasiness has been the safe but largely impotent invocation of the nameless, faceless Administrator. I’ve been in too many conversations—perhaps you have, too?—in which hand-wringing leads to an appetite for blame and this leads to happy agreement that “administrators” are the source of all evil. We identify a common enemy in a group of people with whom we do not identify. This was my go-to conversational move when I was an assistant professor, but now that I’m tenured and even more so now that I’ve served as department chair, I can’t go down that well-worn discursive path without feeling ashamed of myself. My experiences at a state university relying on a high number of contingent faculty have taught me that nothing is likely to change until we take personal responsibility for what has happened to the profession.

I don’t know Rosemary Feal (MLA executive director) but I bet she thinks more about adjunctifaction than some people I do know. It’s not comfortable to say this but I know too many people who are skilled at not connecting the dots of their own actions to the profession-wide devastation they read about online or in magazines. Feal got it right when a few days before these recent controversies, she was quoted in an Atlantic.com article as saying that along with the help of trustees and accreditation agencies, this fight needs the support of middle administrators.

By “middle administrators,” I assume Feal has in mind people like the tenured faculty who start new minors with off-track labor, the directors growing programs out of thin air, the chairs who have to graduate majors on woefully strapped budgets, and the associate deans and deans who advise these afore-mentioned people that it is easier to get permission for an off-tenure than for a tenure-line appointment. These are the middle managers who have built our current academic labor system much more intimately than have the highly visible obscenely-paid presidents of tier-one universities.

The middleman “needs to choose not to be complicit in a system that abuses adjuncts,” Feal is quoted as saying. Yes, we need to choose not to be complicit. By “we,” I refer to all tenured faculty. Why do we have tenure if not for the freedom (or luxury) it affords to avoid acts that contradict our consciences? Tenure means we don’t have to fix lab results for the pharmaceutical companies who donate to our universities. It also means that we don’t have to write and sign contracts that make for widespread misery.

I think many people would agree with this. So why do we do it? Why is creating adjunct sections so tempting for people who know better? My department has done it for years. Hiring off the tenure track has enabled us to: 1) hire people with higher courseloads to meet student demand without undertaking the hard work of time-intensive searches (rather, a chair makes a phone call); 2) hire people with higher courseloads without asking how this might—or should—prompt us to rethink our more desirable conventional jobs bundling teaching, research, and service; 3) hire spouses not as spousal hires but into non-tenure track positions since they are easier to secure; 4) hire people for curricular areas we find alluring without committing to those areas in perpetuity; 5) grow niche programs on all-adjunct labor to boost our overall student-credit-hour numbers so that we have more capital to ask for tenure lines; 6) hire adjuncts to give full-time faculty course releases for research and other projects; 7) add new sections at the last minute when all the others fill up so that our students have the classes they need to graduate; 8) hire our graduate students in the hope that teaching experience will make them attractive for full-time jobs elsewhere; and, of course,  9) continue to run the full gamut of courses during budget crunches that we hope are short-term but that often become long-term. Some of these motivations are more understandable than others but all of them have made the world in which we now live.

I once talked to a chair of a different department who felt very guilty about her use of adjuncts. She brightened, though, when she told me that she was working on a plan to improve the situation. She had submitted a proposal to the dean for a full-time non-tenure-track position to both teach and manage the thirty-odd adjuncts she typically employs. This new person, she said, could improve the adjuncts’ lives by holding occasional social events and developing a helpful handbook. This woman is an excellent chairperson in many respects but I don’t understand why we don’t use the power of our privilege to stop running our programs on disposable appointments. Sure, it is a hell of a lot of work strategizing, re-arranging, coordinating with other bodies (such as Senate), cajoling, foot-stamping and stonewalling to insist that we grow responsibly – but it’s easier to sleep at night.

Actually, the truth is that I know perfectly well why we don’t do more about this problem: because when you tackle it, you don’t sleep better. You may even sleep worse. We do nothing in large part because the people who came before us or we ourselves have already done the damage. At first each contingent position was a canny solution, a short-term and apparently victimless strategy for weathering tough times. It is now our collective disaster that (flesh and blood) people depend on even the worst non-tenure-track positions. It turns out that bucking the system that is already in place is as hard on the conscience as maintaining it. Even if in the long run better jobs with access to tenure are created and this improves the university (and, in turn, society) by strengthening academic freedom, particular individuals likely will lose out. No matter how ingenious the circumstances designed to move us from a majority off-track to majority on-track workforce, no matter how irreproachably conscientious, there will be outcomes that feel unjust from someone’s perspective. This is by far the hardest part of making change. Since both options—bucking and not bucking—are painful, the path of least resistance (doing nothing) is the one we typically choose.

Hard, too, but in a different league from taking people’s jobs away, is that bucking the system wins one enemies because tenure-track faculty have come to benefit from the compromised labor system we deplore. It’s really nice, for example, to tell that treasured junior faculty member that you will hire an adjunct to cover her class so she can finish the publication she needs to achieve tenure. It’s really nice to learn that you can drop next term’s class to complete the book that’s been weighing you down for five years, the book that will change the world . . . or slightly reframe a small part of it for the five people who read it.

I can hear in that last sentence that my tone is turning sour. I am in danger of ranting about university plantations and caste systems, about lifeboaters and migrant workers, so I’ll stop. But you see what I’m getting at. I’d like us to help our middle managers to not be complicit with the deteriorating conditions of the profession. We might start by understanding that when we ask for releases from our chair (for whatever more or less excellent reason) we are often asking them to hire adjuncts. We also need to resist the temptation to ask for adjunct sections so that esteemed friends, perfectly qualified lovers, and prodigiously talented graduate students can earn a small income.

Let’s be even bolder by asking our directors and department chairs to stop hiring off the tenure track for any reason and by helping them use this strategy to demand new tenure-line positions. The first baby step towards getting good positions is refusing to create adjunct sections. Insist that your department wants to meet student demand but can only do so ethically and professionally with tenure-track positions.

You will be called naive. That’s to be expected. What’s harder is when people call you doctrinaire because you resist the creation of an adjunct section for, say, someone’s brilliant son or daughter when teaching one class is everything to this adult child at this moment in time but isn’t it, really, nothing—infinitesimal—in the grand scheme of adjunctification? Might you also inadvertently make it more difficult for your students to graduate? Might you have to spend many hours forging alliances with faculty across your university to put pressure on deans and your provost to create new tenure lines? Yes and yes. It could be worth all of this, nonetheless, because you could move from hand-wringing to turning the system around, job by job.

“Why are we complicit in creating a disposable workforce?” is part one of two parts. Moving from refusal to possibility is the subject of part two, which appears next week. How do we effect change when contingent labor is now written into our universities’ fiscal strategy for survival?


Anonymous said...

I very much agree that faculty need to recognize the ways in which their research activities, graduate education desires, and "partner hire" desires have worked hand in glove with the institutionalization of adjunct labor. So kudos to the author for raising this explicitly, although it's a bit buried in a very long post.

That said, there's a certain deck chairs on the titanic feel to this, as far as liberal arts enrollments go. I feel like we're catching up to a 20th century issue. The problem in the future will not, likely, be too many adjunct jobs. It will be too few jobs period. This is because enrollments are crashing. Several programs I know are having to use all kinds of fictions to employ anyone at all, in sections unjustified by enrollments. So it is great to form grand alliances and all, but the first order of business is either to restore enrollments by some massive outreach and lowering of cost; or to realize that all the talk at the Dean's office will do no good if the Dean has no money.

Vanessa Vaile said...

I syndicated Remaking the University to my Facebook page -- from there it goes to Twitter where it has been picking up a lot comments. This one really strikes a chord... I have to agree with Anon above but still think there is much to be said for handing out extra life jackets instead of just locking us in down in steerage

Chris Newfield said...

I agree with Anon on the need to rebuild enrollments, and think that overlaps with Jennifer Ruth's argument about faculty getting re-involved in program design. She rightly focuses on the labor issues, and we're also going to have to made student educational issues central. Otherwise there's no reason why admin plus consultants shouldn't decide curricula for us on cost grounds; on the other hand, if we do get involved, we can offer students more meaningful course sequencing leading to more explicit intellectual achievements than the budget-squeezed checklists most students are getting now. I don't think we can possibly accept a low-employment future -- that's a system design feature that has powerful allies in tech and government but that is also a political-economic choice that societies can, over time, modify or reject. Since the social and economic consequences of "disruptive innovation" are clearer now than they were even ten years ago, we can work in a more focused way on alternatives.

Chris Newfield said...

Jennifer Ruth's related op-ed in the Oregonian: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/portland_state_needs_more_tenu.html

Bob Samuels said...

This is a very important intervention, and while I respect the need for professors to think about their own complicity in a system of labor exploitation, it is a system and will require a systemic response. Although it is important for everyone to improve their local situations, we need a national solution to a national problem. I have suggested tying federal aid to a requirement that 75% of the student credit hours are taught by full-time faculty.

Seth Kahn said...

Bob (and all): Yes, it requires a systemic response, but that systemic response doesn't take root without local commitments and lots of them.

In response to a kind of handwringing-but-sympathetic "What do we now?" post on a national listserv the other day, I posed as a place to start: Departments (chairs, program directors, curriculum committees, grad programs, etc) need to make a commitment that we're not going to implement policies that harm adjunct faculty for the benefit of other faculty. I think I put it more pithily, something like, "We need to make commitments not to take advantage of the contingency of our contingent faculty in order to benefit other constituencies."

Until we can get people to commit to a simple premise like that one (don't screw over your adjuncts just because you can), systemic changes will be hard to come by.

Iuncta Iuvant said...

Draft proposal to realign predatory incentives within academia (per Ruth article above):
Redesigned university system: The Managerial Technical Skills Program of mandatory courses

• Prohibit adjuncts from teaching courses across departments, but kept an adjunct-staffed program that teaches a curriculum of writing and related Managerial Technical Skills (MTS) to students (not professional writers).
o Allows departments to maintain placekeeper jobs for spouses, grad students, and underemployed librarians; alum jobs for retired professionals and professional writers; and/or institutionalizes cross-over jobs for high school teachers.
o MTS program consists of decent-paying unionized jobs under the state or province's K-12 teachers' union.
 (This would also help people build an out, a bridge to other positions in other institutions, eg. K-12 as well as university, so that academics are not such a captured and vulnerable labor market. It could also have the virtue of helping build a more prestigious and professional, Finnish-style culture within K-12 education.)

• Other MTS subject areas:
• Scholarly disposition: Instilling sense of scholarly community pride and normalizing class attendance, reading coursework, discussing in class, etiquette and in-course cooperation with profs across genders and other social statuses, classroom etiquette.
• Some depts have stopped teaching the scientific method and its logic, although they still have students doing illogical stats and experiments. That's a mess than could use dedicated supplemental educators cleaning it up.
• There is the need to teach documents research--which other than in law school is basically, actually taught informally by individual librarians.
• Another university-appropriate technical skill which doesn't get taught adequately is collective mobilization and organization, such as are needed by employers, management, labor and political institutions.

• The MTS Program would be jointly administered by the Faculty Senate and the state or provincial teacher's union.
• Departments may forward nominations (employees, skill area) to the MTS Program for adjunct positions. High school teachers may apply through their union; and union-nominated high-school teachers are reserved first choice for about 3 positions/term.
• MTS Program to replace other Intro to University programs. Three (3) mandatory 1-term courses (9 credits) in the Program required of every university student for graduation.

• Rationale 1: Most public universities have unsatisfactory approaches to teaching university students how to write in various forms. Improvement is very much needed in this area, as well as in the other MTS subject areas highlighted above.
• Rationale 2: As is, adjunct positions amount to patronage dispensations from individual Departments that don't have enough power or access to resources to dispense decent patronage. Individual professors already dispense low-paying research assistantships, grant writing joblets, grant funds to community orgs. The teaching job patronage function can persist through nomination and be pooled into the MTS program.

Ann Mosley said...

Actually, I also agree with this initiative. As a former student I felt really overwhelmed after graduation. It took me a while to gather with my thoughts and find a suitable job. I honestly wouldn’t mind a little guidance at that time, glad they are providing this kind of assistance to students today. Yet it’s important to support students on each stage of their university life. I wouldn’t manage to complete my coursework without a little help (you can click here if you need assistance too). For me it is nothing to be ashamed about.

Pamela Hieronymi said...

Excellent points. I was expecting to hear something about the earlier step: the use of graduate students for labor and prestige, and the resulting over-creation of PhD's.

Anonymous said...

Part of this problem revolves around the notion that all universities must be everything for everybody.

I've always liked the idea of regionalizing majors in the state university systems. Instead of offering every major (especially low demand or low employment majors) at every campus in the system, offer them instead at a select number of campuses spread throughout the state.

I agree with the comment about adding programs just for the heck of it. Job prospects for lawyers are just dismal (and have been for years) and the law schools keep churning out a surplus, yet the UC added a new law school a few years ago. Madness!

Anonymous said...

There's only one problem with your proposal: when some dean says "here are your students, and here are your tenured/tenure-track faculty, now go forth and teach with the staff you have, no more." Notice here that the dean has no more tenure-track lines to give, per her boss the Provost, who must answer to falling revenues from falling enrollment and falling state support. The only way this works is if you have some plan for creating tenure-track lines out of falling revenue. It ain't gonna happen at the vast majority of places. So the tenured/tenure-track faculty, who have been happily enjoying sabbaticals, leave time, course releases, spousal employment, and low course loads with few students, will have to teach more students, and possibly more sections. They will have to cover the sabbaticals and course releases of their colleagues. When one of their colleagues gets a fellowship to go to Bellagio or the British Museum for the year, they will have to take more students, or teach courses outside their (frequently narrow) purview. When this happens, I predict the hand-wringing over adjunctification will die away. For the same reason that, much as we deplore inner city poverty, we don't want to give up our home mortgage tax deduction, or a Social Security system that is not subject to income testing, or lots of other things that more progressive societies do not have but we insist are untouchable. I hate to sound pessimistic, but I have seen no signs in 20 years of professorial life that faculty will yield any privileges for the common good. It's rather the opposite: we want lower teaching loads, and smaller classes, and more release time, more time to do our "research," etc. No matter what the effect on adjuncts, these things are unlikely to change.

Unknown said...

Yes, I think just like you, this is a good initiative. I remember with horror my student years because of the overloaded curriculum. I was too tired, because I also worked and had to make money to pay for education. Thanks to the help of this website sometimes I could do it faster.

Stephe said...

The first step for faculty is to clearly articulate that the status quo, no matter how entrenched it appears, is unacceptable. While proposing positive changes, we must also protest every time a student is asked to sacrifice his brain to an institution that promises to develop his mind.

Join the Conversation

Note: Firefox is occasionally incompatible with our comments section. We apologize for the inconvenience.