|
« AAUP Homepage
|
From the Guest Editor: The New Majority
By Gwendolyn Bradley
The quest to secure decent compensation and working conditions for contingent faculty and to stem the flow of faculty appointments from the tenure track to the vast and increasing pool of contingency can be disheartening. Part- and full-time contingent appointments together account for more than two-thirds of the faculty.
In just the first few hours of the August conference of the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor I heard about the university system that has a mandated maximum, not minimum, wage. About the department that, after touting its high quality throughout a doctoral student’s program, turns around after he graduates and wonders if he is qualified to teach undergraduates as an adjunct there. About the research university that, after having created full-time contingent positions, ostensibly for the purpose of moving part-timers into them, instead fills them with candidates who would otherwise be eligible for the tenure track—downgrading faculty positions while pretending to upgrade them.
Matters relating to contingent faculty—which, as Gary Rhoades points out in his article, are coterminous with matters relating to the academy at large— are the subject of this special issue of Academe. Contingency affects many populations of academics. Daniel S. Greenberg lays out the situation of postdoctoral fellows, and Benjamin Weaver describes an effort to organize them. Juan Carlos G. Marvizón presents a tongue-in-cheek assessment of the situation of researchers on soft money, and Deirdre McMahon and Ann Green discuss the repercussions of contingency for women. In an article analyzing three recent AAUP cases, Jordan E. Kurland shows how administrators take action against contingent faculty simply because they can.
But despite the insidiousness of contingency, activists on a slew of campuses have demonstrated that, with solidarity, incredible persistence, and varied strategies, change is possible. Joe Berry and Elizabeth Hoffman discuss three successful union efforts in their article in this issue. Nicolas Manicone gives an overview of possible legal remedies. Marc Bousquet discusses activist tactics. Beverly Stewart describes how contingent faculty can pursue unemployment benefits. Nicole Byrd and Jack Longmate make suggestions about effective lobbying, and Andrew William Smith, Marcia Newfield, Niame Adele, and Christine Rack describe lobbying campaigns in different contexts.
Perhaps most controversially, this issue includes a piece by researcher Audrey J. Jaeger on the negative effects of contingent faculty appointments on undergraduate persistence. Some view research along these lines as implying that the individuals serving contingently are somehow to blame. I would argue instead that such research shows that the conditions of many contingent appointments— such as lack of research and travel grants, private office space, paid office hours, and access to adequate technology and equipment—are undermining the basic mission of higher education: educating undergraduates.
After you read the issue, visit Academe on the Web, where you will find more material on lobbying and activism, plus videos. You may also post comments on individual articles. I welcome comments: write to me . If you are not a member of the AAUP but are interested in these issues, I urge you to join; our struggle to strengthen the voices and protect the academic freedom of all faculty depends upon the involvement and support of members.
|