Go on now go, walk out the door.I'm a little slow on the uptake. Only last week did I learn about what happened to the Phantom Professor. I had a few twinges, of the "wait I have tenure could I lose my tenure am I still anonymous" variety, but went on with my life without giving her situation too much more thought. I'm so sorry about that, Phantom Professor.
Just turn around now,
'cause you're not welcome anymore...
Over the weekend I received a letter from a dear friend who held an adjunct position at my former institution, one of the Ivies. He has been at this institution for over 20 years. Yes, I said 20 years. He was initially a research scientist, wherein he wrote lots of grants and supported himself and his family on soft money. Then he was asked and agreed to take on a position involving undergraduate advising and curriculum development, with some teaching on the side. The appointment required 100% of his effort, which meant he could no longer obtain grants to support his research, and also that he had no time to do his research. The position was, last year, absorbed into the dean's office, and my friend found himself with little more than an adjunct teaching appointment.
Not too long ago his department told him that his contract was not going to be renewed. This is a decision that the faculty arrived at, one can hope, during a meeting in which all the pros and cons of keeping him in the department were carefully considered.
He's been in this department for over 20 years. This was not a "temp" whose contract was not renewed, this was a full-fledged member of the department. From the tenured faculty perspective, he no longer fit into the department's mission, and so this decision seemed appropriate. From his perspective, he has been ejected from the department that was his home. He no longer has (a) health insurance; (b) retirement benefits; (c) tuition benefits (with children currently in college); (d) a paycheck; (e) any self-esteem -- this job was his life. I can only imagine his feelings of betrayal. More than one member of the faculty reassured him that even with departmental changes he could be sure of having a position. They shook his hand, they patted him on the back, and then they stabbed him in the back.
How could a group of my colleagues, people like me, come to such a decision, especially in light of the fact that each and every one of the members of this department had to know that this move would be personally and professionally devastating for my friend? Maybe they even felt bad about it. But after 20 years of service, the least they could have done was to find a position for him elsewhere in the university. They didn't: they cut him off completely.
The tenure and promotion system adhered to by most universities (promotion or tenure by year 7) does not apply to adjunct faculty, for reasons that I have never understood. I always thought the U.S. tenure system was draconian and stupid and in need of revision, and until this weekend I was also an advocate of post-tenure review. Now I don't know where I stand. Do the intellectual elite really need the tenure concept to force them to treat their colleagues like human beings? How can any tenured person of conscience exploit the system in this way (for 20 years) and not feel accountable to the adjunct persons exploited?
How also can an adjunct faculty member let himself be exploited like this? I understand the exigencies that forced my friend into this position, and I understand the limitations of the academic job market. However, adjuncts have more power than they know. Nothing terrifies most prominent, senior faculty members (at this university) more than the thought of having to teach a large undergraduate course. Am I naive in thinking that all the adjuncts have to do is stay home one semester, leaving all the teaching to the tenured faculty, and that more sensible tenure/contract guidelines will be drafted for the following semester? Perhaps I am.
I'm sorry if this entry is more poorly written than usual. I am also sorry if I appear to have just had my blinders pulled off. I have never worried about tenure for myself, and never thought too seriously before about the living conditions of the not-yet- and never-to-be-tenured. I have been ignorant, in the same way that a rich white man ponders the circumstances of a poor black woman. I have no right to even tell an adjunct faculty member what they should be doing to better their situations. Instead, the adjuncts should tell me what I can do to change this system. Because this system is truly fucked up.
9 comments:
That fucking sucks.
"Disposable people" is the latest fad. Just ask the President. Or the folks at Walmart, or United Airlines, or...
"I always thought the U.S. tenure system was draconian and stupid and in need of revision... Do the intellectual elite really need the tenure concept to force them to treat their colleagues like human beings? How can any tenured person of conscience exploit the system in this way (for 20 years) and not feel accountable to the adjunct persons exploited?"
I'd hate to express an opinion about this from a position of ignorance. It's possible that the department in question lost a faculty line and your friend was the only person they could let go. Or they could have stabbed him in the back to free up money or the position for something/someone else. As I'm sure you know, universities are moving towards having fewer tenured/tenure track faculty and more faculty on adjunct appointments. Just part of the overall increase in meanness in academia (and why should academia be any different than industry?): the drive to do more with less. Meanwhile, top administrator salaries continue to increase faster than faculty salaries. I wonder who university presidents bitch about. State legislators? Trustees?
The thing that kills me is that he didn't need a lot of money. He lives a very simple life and part of his choice to be an adjunct was based on that philosophy. I think I know the faculty's motivations in letting him go, but the way it was done is unconscionable.
It's one thing to tell someone that you're letting him go, that he has a year to go find another position, sorry, and quite another thing to say we'll find you another position, don't worry, and then let him go anyway.
In every university there are positions to be had in the undergraduate offices; advising, curriculum development, assistants to deans, etc. These positions are not sinecures, but tend to be filled with faculty spouses and people like my friend. There is no reason why they couldn't have shifted him laterally to one of these.
I'm sure they felt bad in failing to renew his contract, but feeling bad is not good enough. After 20 years, they had a responsibility to see that he was taken care of. It was his lack of tenure or any sort of equivalent that let them feel like none of it was their responsibility.
The pressure to eliminate tenure-track positions is different, I think, in private vs. public schools. In my former (my friend's) institution, undergraduate teaching is done largely by untenured and adjunct faculty. Many senior faculty members teach nothing at all. The role of the adjuncts is to take up the teaching responsibilities that these people have eschewed.
In my present institution, a state school, the pressure is on everyone, no matter how senior, to teach, because teaching brings in more revenue than IDCs. Adjuncts are used here because the budget limits our ability to make tenure-track appointments, but we still have to teach the courses required for the major. Adjuncts are, of course, paid a pittance per contact hour and fit within the budget, whereas tenure-tracks require benefits and stuff.
Here the bitching is definitely directed toward the state legislature, who not only limits the state's subsidy of our operating budget but also sets limits on tuition. There's nothing good about what's happening to higher education in our state.
What a horrible story! Truly terrible. One of the reasons for the up-or-out rule for those on the tenure track is to avoid just this sort of problem--exploiting someone for x years and then letting them go w/no warning. Unfortunately, academia isn't immune to irresponsible behavior any more than corporate america (where terrible stories are legion). Hence, tenure (which provides for due process and protects the quality of education somewhat from political retaliation). And unions.
I sorrow for your friend.
I've dithered over adding non-science blogs to my blogroll, but this thoughtful and moving entry tipped me over the edge. I have many reasons to be displeased at the tenure system, and this adds another log to the flame.
-Phil Plait
Bad Astronomy Blog
It is unconscionable for a department to rely on an adjunct to do work which is clearly integral to the department -- research, teaching -- for two decades: after the first decade, someone in the department (a chair, perhaps?) should have insisted that the position be converted to tenure-track, so that the department would not be so vulnerable to administrative whims and politics. Clearly your friend would have been a strong candidate for a tenure-track position, if it had been made available.
Phil - I'm your biggest fan. I'm honored. Thank you.
Jonathan, the criteria used to evaluate adjuncts is much different from the criteria used to evaluate tenure track faculty. I agree that my friend would have been a strong candidate for tenure, but not necessarily in this department or at this school. One of the things wrong with the tenure system is that not only is a person evaluated according to the quality of his work and teaching, but also according to how well the person fits in with the tenured faculty's perception of the department "mission." This leaves the tenure decision vulnerable to a lot of dirty politics.
Even if my friend had wanted to be considered for tenure, and he did not, I don't think his department would have made the conversion to tenure-track. His research, no matter how productive it was, did not "mesh well" with the other faculty perspectives.
Another reason that I consider our tenure system broken.
I'm not sure I feel as much sympathy as losing everyone else. Losing your job sucks, no doubt about it. But since he wasn't tenured, what made him think his job was guaranteed? Downsizing happens all the time in business, and an adjunct position is treated like a business proposition by a university - whether or not it ought to be. Welcome to the rest of America.
>Am I naive in thinking that all the adjuncts have to do is stay home one semester, leaving all the teaching to the tenured faculty, and that more sensible tenure/contract guidelines will be drafted for the following semester?<
As a child of the working class, this makes me remember an old-fashioned word--STRIKE. If any group of workers in this country needs to be organized, needs a fucking U-N-I-O-N to prevent these kinds of atrocities from occuring, it is adjuncts. And they will indeed have the power to change their working conditions for exactly the reasons you mention.
So who is down for some 1930s style organizing?
Post a Comment