Skip to content

Should we fire all the adjuncts (and hire them back for real)?

October 14, 2009

I just came across a thought-provoking interview with Cary Nelson, president of the AAUP. The video is titled Twilight of Academic Freedom. It deals with the consequences of increasing numbers of “contingent faculty” in higher education — the adjuncts, visiting professors, instructors, and various other titles for instructional staff who do not have the protections of tenure.

Right now, many universities are looking for ways to save money, and one way to do that is to hire fewer tenure-related faculty and shift the teaching burden onto adjuncts who are hired for as little as the uni can get away with paying. (It’s worth noting that this trend started well before the current recession, though I wouldn’t doubt that it’s accelerated.) Nelson is concerned about universities that are moving toward having an increasing share of teaching done by such contingent faculty.

Adjunct positions have a useful place in universities when used for the right reasons. One such reason is to expose students to perspectives that come from outside of the academy. For example, my undergraduate Abnormal Psychology class was taught by an adjunct whose main job was as a clinical psychologist at a hospital. That gave her a wealth of stories and practical experience that she could bring to the classroom.

But using adjuncts as a cost-cutting measure is a different thing. Many adjuncts will tell you that the system exploits instructors who work at low wages as a way to remain in the game while they hunt for better-paying permanent jobs. Those jobs typically don’t exist in high enough numbers to hire everybody who’s circling in the adjunct holding pattern.

Nelson offers a different line of argument, one that stems from the core reason tenure exists in the first place: academic freedom. To quote from the interview, “Academic freedom and job security are inextricably linked.” Tenure ensures that a professor can choose what to teach based on professional judgment. Direct review of those decisions is made by professional peers, protecting individual faculty from legislators, donors, regents, and others who might wield their considerable influence to drum out professors who don’t fit some outside agenda.

Nelson is not just worried about individual adjuncts being vulnerable. Even more ominous are the systemic risks of a university shifting to an adjunct-heavy portfolio. Hiring the occasional adjunct at an institution with a solid core of tenure-protected faculty is not likely to be a problem, as long as tenured faculty care enough about academic freedom that they’ll raise a stink if an adjunct is being subject to inappropriate pressure. (It’s sort of intellectual herd immunity.) But without that core, when too many of your faculty could be threatened for teaching something that someone does not like, the institution loses an important protection. Just look at the battles over secondary school textbooks in biology and history for an example of the kind of political infighting that can result. Is that where higher education could end up — with a state board telling me what to teach and what textbooks to use? I hope not, but Nelson presents good reasons to worry.

2 Comments
  1. October 14, 2009 6:17 pm

    I once worked (as an adjunct) at an institution where the adjunct faculty were 80% of the faculty. And they used to make a point of telling us this so that we would know how important, how crucial we were to the running of said institution. The sad truth is that many times I’ve considered leaving a career I love–a career that I’m *good* at–because of the simple fact that I need to make ends meet, and I need health insurance (as someone who had cancer twelve years ago, not having health coverage for me is never an option again. Ever.)

    My current institution has a much better ratio, but they’re still saving money on me. I recently figured it out with a tenured colleague who sits on the finance committee: I earn about a tenth of what he does, and contribute almost exactly ten times what he does to a health insurance plan. Do not adjust your monitor. My department chair has flat-out told me she would love to hire me, but hasn’t been approved to create a position–which she then can’t give me until I finish my PhD, never mind that I have a terminal MFA. So the truth of the equation is that this school and I stand a very good chance of losing out on each other.

  2. Sanjay Srivastava permalink
    October 15, 2009 10:51 am

    Firecat, it sounds like you have definitely experienced the economic treatment that is usually people’s first critique of how adjuncts are treated (which is no surprise, since that is what’s most immediately and personally consequential for most adjuncts).

    I’m curious what you think of the academic freedom issue, especially at the first institution that was 80% adjuncts. Did you feel like you had pretty free rein to create your curriculum and manage your classroom in the way that you thought was best? If you wanted to incorporate something into your class that was unpopular or controversial, would you have felt confident that your chair/dean/etc would have your back?

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: