Rainy Adjunct Action Day/NAWD at Mesa College 2018

In the interest of coordination with other protest events, our humble but serious Adjunct Action Day NAWD took place today. A last minute change was the accommodation of the national school walkout to protest gun violence in schools, which conflicted with our planned protest. We altered our start time to 10:20 from 10:00. Of course, we addressed gun violence. Also addressed, in several short speeches, including comments by, among others, me, Geoff, Jesus Gaytan, and one of our supportive board members, Peter Zschiesche, were taxing the richest to pay for free community college, appealing to the governor to increase adjunct office hour pay, the injustice being perpetrated on DACA students, and ending adjunctification by hiring all or most of the 87% adjunct faculty at Mesa College, a quick and efficient solution, into full-time positions, paid for by a tax on, you guessed it, the richest’s ill-gotten gains.

In my brief time at the mic, I asked why it’s acceptable for employees at community colleges to work a career (18 years, so far, in my case) with part-time status, when this is still frowned upon in most other areas of employment. Yes, I know the neoliberal agenda is unfolding, full speed ahead, and the gig economy is growing by leaps and bounds. But I protest, nevertheless.

Here, on a rainy day in San Diego, Geoff Johnson is introducing our speakers.

I know there is no rain in the picture. But, a rainy day it was, in the desert.

We did have a heckler, bag full of alternative facts, who kept trying to hijack our comments by asking, trying to talk over the responses, why rich people should be taxed or should have to pay for things for other people, like it was an undue burden on them. My answer was, “because they have all the money!” He offered choice alternative facts on gun control and on undocumented people as well. Although offered “better” facts, he rejected them and insisted that, for instance, background checks for gun purchases were already extraordinarily rigorous. He had other “facts,” all of which were shot down.

My comments did not bother him until I openly pondered, akin to the petition, which we touted also,  to have free community college paid for by a dedicated estate tax on property valued at $3.5 million put on the people’s ballot in California, why not have a ballot measure to hire long-time adjuncts into full-time positions paid for in a similar way with some kind of tax on billionaires? It was this inquiry that got him started on the “why should rich people pay for anything?” line. He sparred a little bit with every speaker.

And so there you have it, short but sweet.

Resist!

Peace, Love, and worker solidarity!

Advertisements

Protect Adjunct Jobs and Working Conditions: Tell the Governor to Spend Money on Adjuncts, Not an Online College

Below are two letters concerning Governor Brown’s plan to set aside 120 million dollars for the Community College Chancellor to create a fully online California community college separate from the 112 colleges, all already offering online instruction.

The reasons this is a BAD idea are many, but just know this:

  1. This college would compete with the online courses presently available at other colleges, which would damage enrollment at your school and sending you looking for more work.
  2. This college would hire mostly adjuncts from all over the world, not just the US, and from many places where the wages are low here might be quite high to them elsewhere.
  3. It would have, and these are the words of the Chancellor who would administer it, “meet and confer” status, meaning no real collective bargaining, no union protections, and likely crap wages.

The first is the letter I wrote for Southwestern College.  Below that is a template for the letter you need to write for your college.  To make each letter unique, enter the college you’re teaching at in the first open blank on the template,, and in the second blank, the percentage of classes taught online at your college.

Such information is public knowledge and can be gotten from your college’s office of Institutional Effectiveness. Copy, paste, edit, print out, send:

Here’s the Sample Southwestern Letter, followed by the template you should work from:

Governor Edmund G. Brown

℅ State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA

 

Governor Brown:

In your recent budget summary, and specifically before leading into your discussion of this year’s education budget, you spoke of “moving government closer to the people.”  This in fact has been the impetus of your “Local Control Funding Formula,” or LCFF, designed to direct money to those districts or regions of the state where it is most needed.

While this desire to improve California’s workforce to reach its often most marginalized and disadvantaged population is laudable, your proposal to meet this need via the creation of a California Online Community College, though well-intended, is a step in the wrong direction.

Presently, online education is already widely available throughout California’s 72 Community College Districts and 114 Colleges.  At Southwestern College in Chula Vista, for example, 10.5% of instruction is currently provided fully online, by trained and certified online instructors.  These schools also already provide online counseling and 24-hour asynchronous tutoring.  Community Colleges can already meet the needs of students who cannot attend a traditional campus because of work or other considerations.  At the same time, unlike a fully online academy, students have the option of going to a physical location to have their needs served, such as counseling, tutoring, and health services.

The Online California College is aimed at a particular population of adults who face challenges that will not allow them to attend traditional college such as distance to the nearest college, work schedules or physical limitations that force them to stay home.  Many of these potential students may lack the learning skills and efficacy for formal learning.  For these students, there may the need before or even while taking an online course for more personal, face-to-face attention, or hands on instruction.  Online learning in general requires a high degree of self-discipline and focus, and support to bring such students to this point can be and is provided by existing community colleges.  In this regard, a fully online college cannot solve the problems nor meet the needs of these students.

The creation of an Online California College separate of the existing community colleges will only serve to decrease their enrollment, leading to potential class and program cancellations at these colleges, and in addition, causing many of the most economically at risk educators in the state, adjuncts and classified staff, to lose their jobs.  It is quite likely that with a fully online academy that many teachers will no longer be California residents, or even US residents, and without union protections, will likely be paid less with limited or no benefits. Presently, one in four adjuncts nationwide is on some form of assistance, and increasing the numbers of these adjuncts seeking assistance adds to the problem of poverty in the state.

Rather than spending 120 million dollars on an Online College that creates redundancy and will hurt students, teachers, and their respective communities, this same money would better spent by increasing the number of full-time instructors, including those who are qualified to teach online. Furthermore, increasing both the pay of adjunct or part-time instructors to a more equitable level would allow them to reduce their teaching loads and better serve students, especially those who are teaching online.  Finally, increasing funding for paid part-time instructor office hours, which can be and are currently provided virtually by online instructors, will improve student retention and completion, as a number of studies have shown.

Governor Brown, your desire for a better California is shared, but let us achieve it by properly funding the good work community colleges have the greater potential to do.

 

Name (Please Print):__________________________

Address:___________________________________

___________________________________

Signature:__________________________________

Date:______________________________________

 

Here is the template you should download and use:

Governor Edmund G. Brown

℅ State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

Governor Brown:

In your recent budget summary, and specifically before leading into your discussion of this year’s education budget, you spoke of “moving government closer to the people.”  This in fact has been the impetus of your “Local Control Funding Formula,” or LCFF, designed to direct money to those districts or regions of the state where it is most needed.

While this desire to improve California’s workforce to reach its often most marginalized and disadvantaged population is laudable, your proposal to meet this need via the creation of a California Online Community College, though well-intended, is a step in the wrong direction.

Presently, online education is already widely available throughout California’s 72 Community College Districts and 114 Colleges.  At     [your]    College in  [your city], for example,  [?]  % of instruction is currently provided fully online, by trained and certified online instructors.  These schools also already provide online counseling and 24-hour asynchronous tutoring.  Community Colleges can already meet the needs of students who cannot attend a traditional campus because of work or other considerations.  Unlike a fully online academy, students have the option of going to a physical location to have their needs served, such as counseling, tutoring, and health services.

The Online California College is aimed at a particular population of adults who face challenges that will not allow them to attend traditional college, such as distance to the nearest college, work schedules, or physical limitations that force them to stay home.  Many of these potential students may lack the learning skills and efficacy for formal learning.  For these students then, there may the need before or even while taking an online course for more personal, face-to-face attention, or hands on instruction.  Online learning in general requires a high degree of self-discipline and focus, and support to bring such students to this point can be and is provided by existing community colleges.  In this regard, a fully online college cannot solve the problem nor meets the needs of these students.

The creation of an Online California College separate of the existing community colleges will only serve to decrease their enrollment, leading to potential class and program cancellations at these colleges, and in addition, causing many of the most economically at risk educators in the state, adjuncts and classified staff, to lose their jobs.  It is quite likely that with a fully online academy that many teachers will no longer be California residents, or even US residents, and without union protections, will likely be paid less with limited or no benefits. Presently, one in four adjuncts nationwide is on some form of assistance, and increasing the numbers of these adjuncts seeking assistance adds to the problem of poverty in the state.

Rather than spending 120 million dollars on an Online College that creates redundancy and will hurt students, teachers, and their respective communities, this same money would better spent by increasing the number of full-time instructors, including those who are qualified to teach online.  Furthermore, increasing both the pay of adjunct or part-time instructors to a more equitable level would allow them to reduce their teaching loads and better serve students, especially those who are teaching online.  Finally, increasing funding for paid part-time instructor office hours, which can be and are currently provided virtually by online instructors, will improve student retention and completion, as a number of studies have shown.

Governor Brown, your desire for a better California is shared, but let us achieve it by properly funding the good work community colleges have the greater potential to do.

Sincerely,

Name (Please Print): __________________________

Address:____________________________________

____________________________________

Signature:___________________________________

Date:_______________________________________

Fighting for Paid Part-Time Office Hours: Get Your Letter Templates Here and Give Governor Brown Your Thoughts

Good Adjuncts:

This is a letter to the governor asking for more categorical funding for office hours.  Last year, as a result much effort by many, including a letter campaign similar to this one, we were able to get a 70% increase to the State Part-time Office Hours Fund.  This is still a drop in the bucket to what is needed, because the state only matches 10% of what local districts pay out for office hours.  For this reason, the pay is low, and hours are limited, and that’s if a district actually has a paid office hours program.

We need more money, and this is the letter for it. It’s similar to the letter put out as a part of Campus Equity Week last Fall, but it’s been “freshened up,” and is this time not directed to the Director of Finance, but to the governor himself.  Copy the letter, paste it, make any changes you want, print it, sign it and send it, or better yet print it, make hundreds or thousands of copies, give them to everyone you know, collect them, and send them.

If you want me to send you this letter as a microsoft word attachment, please email me at mixinminao@gmail.com

By the way,  print is better than email.

Let’s get it done

Geoff Johnson

Here’s the letter:

Governor Edmund G. Brown

℅ State Capitol, State 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Brown:

In your most recent budget summary, you have made it clear that you take a concerted interest in the achievement of student success.

One of the most significant components in the achievement of student success is a meaningful and productive student-teacher interaction and it is not limited to what happens in a classroom.  These interactions often require students and teachers to meet outside the classroom to discuss student issues that at times may not be just curriculum but other educational matters that are necessary for providing direction and ultimately leading to student success.

It has been found in repeated studies that this outside-the-classroom student interaction is often one of the most critical factors in helping the most at risk and challenged students to succeed. A teacher needs to be more than just a classroom facilitator for the student to succeed.

It then is highly ironic to know that at California Community Colleges approximately 70% of faculty are temporary, part-time, or adjunct instructors, who are largely paid only for their time in the classroom. In addition, because many are disproportionately paid at half the rate or less than their full-time counterparts, these adjunct instructors will often have to travel to other districts to teach, leaving them with limited time to fully interact with their students.

Some of the obvious solutions to increasing this student-teacher interaction would be to hire more full-time instructors to be in compliance with the 75-25 full-time/adjunct ratio that is mandated by AB1725, or to simply provide the funds to pay adjuncts more equitably in relation to their full-time counterparts.

A more immediate step that you and the legislature chose last year was to increase state part-time office hours by providing an additional five million dollars to the office hour fund. While this clearly was a step in the right direction, this fund only covers about 10% of the local part-time office hour funding. This lack of funding leaves many districts to choose to offer very limited office hours (for example,  2-3 hours of paid office hours for an entire semester for a 3-unit course at Southwestern College or a total of 8 hours for the entire semester at Pasadena City College regardless of the number of courses taught) or no paid office hours at all.

As evidenced, the money in the state part-time office hours program is inadequate and needs to be increased. Please consider allocating an additional 25 million dollars for the state part-time office hours program.

Empower California’s adjuncts to create the student-teacher interactions critical to student success.

Sincerely,

Name (Please Print)________________________  Signature:_____________________________

Address________________________________________________________________________`

Date_____________________________________

 

Adjunct Action Day (aka NAWD) 4.0, Yes It’s Still Happening (At Least in San Diego)

Good Adjuncts:

Sorry I’ve been away.  The curse of trying to fight for social justice and equity in the age of Trump is that you don’t suffer for work.  That is why you have seen few new entries here of late.

Because of our involvement in a major rally in San Diego on Saturday, Feb. 24th, we are moving our Adjunct Action Day activities to Wednesday, March 14th.  In addition to this, there are a number of joint CTA and AFT community college adjunct-oriented letter writing campaigns, that are starting up, and you will have access to those letters here.

We’ve not gone away in apathy or depression, in fact the opposite–we’re just f**king busy.

I know, and so are you, and you’re getting screwed on pay.  I guess we’ve got to do something about that.

Geoff Johnson

Attempting to be a “good” Adjunct.

How the Student Became a Consumer and the Professor Became Precarious

Here is the text of the speech I gave to kick off a week of Campus Equity Week 2017 events at San Diego Mesa College.

Adjunctification and Corporatization: How Students Became Consumers and Professors Became Precarious

“The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself.”

In 1837, Ralph Waldo Emerson gave a speech, “The American Scholar,” in which he made this comment. His words represent a resistance to the idea that education should be utilitarian, a notion rooted in anti-intellectualism. Emerson saw the mind as a creative force in the universe that could aspire to ideals such as the ones enshrined in the Constitution: Justice, Peace, and Compassion, for instance. Emerson saw the pursuit of these lofty aims as the appropriate aims of the American Scholar. The scholar, in seeking to know himself and his world, elevates the entire community. Emerson’s words speak to us today as we face the corporatization of higher education.

What is adjunctification? It is an ungainly and disquieting word, a neologism that is necessary to name a process that would otherwise be seen, and, regrettably, increasingly is seen, as business as usual in higher education. I use this idiom, “business as usual,” to heighten the connection between adjunctification and the paradigmatic ideology that higher education is a business, or, more precisely, a corporation, which brings me to the other unwieldy word in the title: “corporatization.”

These words, adjunctification and corporatization, together name the decades long process that has institutionalized in higher education the ideological assumptions that the student is a customer, education is a commodity, and the aim of higher education institutions is to maximize profit and minimize cost while delivering an easily consumable product: to achieve, in corporate rhetoric, “efficiency.” This is the opposite of what the aim of higher education should be and the implications of this failure of imagination for democracy, the failure to aim high, to aspire beyond the wrongheaded notion that a student is a customer, are dire.

Corporatism is the ideology that all social relations are explainable through market relations. One of the conclusions which follows from this ideology is that market value, the “bottom line,” is ultimate. The corporatization of higher education has been the applying of the idea by legislators and administrators that public higher education should be run like a business. This is a problem because higher education as a public good is not and cannot be a business. The two are mutually exclusive, except within the faulty logic of corporatization ideology. A business sells a product and needs to balance the cost of production with profit, or the business will fail. Higher education is the public institution which, and this is the brief version, is entrusted with old knowledge, new knowledge, and with ways of making knowledge, of leading students to transform information into knowledge through critical thinking. It offers students not only knowledge of the world and the world of ideas, but also an opportunity to grow as individuals and mature into the best possible versions of themselves as free-thinking citizens, ready to participate in fulfilling the promise of democracy in America as well as fulfilling the promise of their lives. Higher education is a public good, not because it prepares students for the workforce, although it does this, but because college students, by reaching deep within to meet the challenge of learning, discover talents and skills they may not have otherwise known they have, which they then bring to the democratic community. If higher education fails, community fails. And when community fails, we have injustice and hate.

 Economist Guy Standing, in his groundbreaking 2010 book, The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, explains that the term “precariat,” a combination of “precarious” and the Marxist term “proletariat,” also known as the “working class,” is a new word necessary to describe contemporary labor conditions. Today, according to Standing, the proletariat has been replaced by the precariat. The proletariat had unions and job security; the precariat is an “independent contractor” and has job insecurity. To achieve maximum “efficiency,” it is necessary to have maximum “flexibility” of labor. What is the most flexible labor? One that is temporary, disposable, and exploitable. Sounds like an adjunct. The aim of corporate ideology is to make the laborer precarious, insecure and fearful, and easy to manage.

 What is an adjunct professor? A member of the precariat of higher education. An adjunct is, by definition, non-essential and disposable to the mission of higher education. Roughly 75% of community college professors nationwide are adjunct: part-time, temporary. Yet, this description is a lie. Typically, adjunct faculty are rehired over and over, for many years. Why? Because they are, obviously, essential to the mission of the college.  To describe them as temporary and non-essential is absurd. At Mesa College, 85% of faculty are adjunct. That means only 15% of faculty are full-time. If you are a student looking for your professor, chances are she will not have her own office, or even be on the same campus.

Most adjuncts are career academics who have devoted their lives to the public good of higher education. Without them, higher education would disintegrate. Most adjuncts always intended to be academics, to teach, or research, or perform as experts in their field of expertise. Chances are these are people whose passion is teaching. They are professionals dedicated to teaching, to making the world a better place. These dedicated professionals devote most of their lives to gaining, maintaining, and teaching their subject matter. This is what they do; it is who they are. It is a calling.

 This is bad for students. Faculty working conditions are student learning conditions. The precarious nature of being adjunct oppresses the adjunct and her students. It makes her education precarious. For instance, students do not have equal access to adjunct professors who have no official, long-term relationship with the institution, in whom the institution has not fully invested. Nevertheless, enduring the unequal working conditions, adjuncts, most of whom would prefer a full-time position, most of whom would be full-time except for the dominant corporate ideology, do most of the teaching in higher education, and do it well. Their qualifications are equal, their labor is equal, their commitment is equal. But the conditions in which they labor to maintain the quality of higher education for students are unequal. Most have more than one job, but earn half what they would make if they had one full-time job. This is unjust. How is this situation equal access for students? You can’t say that it is.

The idea that the ultimate value of labor is determined by market “forces” dictates that the cost of labor should be as low as possible. Adjunctification is the making of academic labor cost as low as possible. The result for faculty is financial insecurity and the powerlessness that goes with precarity.  The business model shortchanges both faculty and students. Students are not only shortchanged because they are denied access to full-time faculty; the business model also requires that students focus their study on a vocational plan. The purpose of a commodified education becomes training students to be good corporate workers as opposed to students seeking knowledge, who study in the liberal arts, which tends to liberate. Most of the traditional subjects of a liberal arts education, including math, science, and the humanities, seem to have no practical value in this paradigm. Of course, if value is cast as utilitarian, then  the liberal arts doesn’t.  Science perhaps, but only if it is connected to a technological development that leads to profit. But if the value of higher education is cast as what makes students able to fulfill the potential of their lives, then the deep, reflective thinking that is required to master language, math, and science, to think philosophically, to know the diverse nature of American culture, and global culture, is what higher education should be about, that is, fostering the growth of minds. In contrast, the commodification of higher education turns the mind into readily consumable fast food.

The question that remains is what do we do about this? First, we must begin by seeing that the student is not a consumer and that faculty, most of whom are precariat, need to be empowered to provide students with the learning opportunities they need to aspire to fulfill their potential. Empowering faculty will require a radical idea, one which now does not exist as a political goal, except in name. We want to fund more full-time positions. But in the current model, there will never be enough money allocated to accomplish this goal of 75% of courses taught by full-time faculty.  To accomplish this will require a radical paradigm shift.

Higher education operating under the limits of a business model offers a one-dimensional paradigm. Humans, like students and faculty, are multi-dimensional beings. When market values replace public values, education is cast as a commodity, and self-interest is held as the highest good in a super-competitive, economically defined world, individual and societal potential is diminished. Faculty are underpaid because ideas are undervalued. We need a paradigm shift. We need liberation from the business model. We need to aim higher.

“What’s the Difference?” UCSD Students Research and Explore Adjunctification

UCSD students made this video for a sociology course. This is the kind of work students can do to resist the adjunctification and corporatization of higher education. Students and faculty must unite in resistance.

I am one of the adjuncts interviewed.

An Adjunct Moment From an Anonymous Adjunct

The following “adjunct moment” is the record of an adjunct dealing with the extra bullshit that adjunct professors deal with on a day to day basis in the service of the public good. It’s not me, but it could happen to any freeway-flying adjunct, anytime, anywhere.  I will point out that full-time professors do not face this bullshit, not to accuse them of anything, but to bring attention to the disparity in working conditions, which are student learning conditions. This disparity cannot be emphasized enough, in my opinion. It’s worth noting that no pedagogical changes are very likely to improve student “success” until we make radical changes in the way we hire college faculty, especially at the community college level. Community colleges are the most adjunctified corner of higher education. Until we have a new system of hiring, one that acknowledges the moral obligation of colleges to their adjunct faculty, especially the ones who have been hired multiple times, by hiring them full-time, students will face the same challenges that their adjunct professors (straight up 75% at community colleges) face. Short of hiring them full-time, which is the only moral solution, they might settle for equal pay.

I am publishing this for the adjunct professor who wrote it, who shall remain anonymous.

For your reading pleasure, a brief narrative in the spirit of the upcoming Campus Equity Week:

“The Word of the Day”
F***! is my word for the day. I just arrived at school and confirmed my worrying suspicion that I left my students’ essays in the adjunct faculty work room at Grossmont College. I searched for it in my car and my house, but I only found about 500 pages of the other 4 English Composition classes I teach. I am pissed that I left it in the office because to go get them is a REAL pain in the ass. If it were not for the integrity I have, I would tell the students that they will not have an opportunity to revise this essay that is to be submitted in a portfolio to the English department as a requisite to enter into transfer level college English. I also will have to tell them that as opposed to my declared plan for their preparation for the portfolio that I am contradicting myself and shortening their instruction (that they cannot trust me at my word).
I am sure many times this occurs and a teacher has no choice but to shorten the quality of their instruction. I am sure many of them have pangs of conscience when they relinquish under the fact that they are not prepared. I am fraught with stress and anxiety because I want to be good at what I profess. For me, teaching brings out my perfectionism, an ethical obligation to teach well. My word of the day is deeply felt in this moment!
I am sure you are thinking that I am being dramatic, that I should simply walk over to the workroom before class and retrieve the papers. I would say the same of any professor on campus, but here is the issue. Technically, while I do the very same thing a professor does for considerably less pay, I am not a full-timer not for lack of credentials or of trying. I am an adjunct, a position that does not garner an office and which is underpaid and restrictive in that each college limits the number of hours to part-time. So, to make a living professing English, composition, and the social merits of the humanistic endeavors of higher education, I teach at 3 institutions. So the word of my day is F***.
F***! I left my English 49 Essays from San Diego Mesa College in the work room at Grossmont College 20 minutes or 15 miles away by freeway.
Rather than shorting my students, I have decided to sacrifice my sanity. It is no question that I will be on the freeway for 40 minutes, plus 20 minutes of running from office to car and car to office. One hour of my day and 5 dollars of gas, to fetch papers. However, it in not merely the fetching that is causing such problems. I had planned to be grading during that hour, and I had arrived 2 hours early to grade those very essays before my 11:00AM English 205 Critical Thinking Class and to continue grading after my 205 class at 12:35 and before my 4:00pm 101 class, so I can deliver them to the 6:35pm English 49 class. In the bag was another class’s essays that I need to read by tomorrow.
All in all when I arrived to school today and realized that I was having an “adjunct moment,” I thought about the consequences of not having one office and one campus to work at. If I was full-time, none of this would have happened, and my classes would not suffer. But, having multiple campus workrooms creates opportunities for one to get mixed with the other. I have never lost any papers, but I have heard of other instructors losing some. I immediate can sympathize with them because of the way my car trunk looks with student papers. For the majority faculty, at least in English, our car trunks are the closest filing cabinet for our work.
F***! This little “adjunct moment,” really pisses me off because most who read this will not understand that the problem is endemic and that it hurts instructors and students regularly. Underpaid, restricted, disunited faculty working out of the trunks of their cars to turn Americans into citizens capable of participating effectively in the economy and politics is a laughable indignity, as Aristotle would classify this comedy that we call “Higher Education.”

 

Any ;adjuncts out there who have any experiences you want me to share and who want to remain anonymous, I’m very happy to oblige. It’s high time we get real.

Campus Equity Week Prepping Part V: Getting Your Full-Time Members on Board

Good Adjuncts,

Yes, the chances of having a successful Campus Equity Week are greatly bolstered by Full-time involvement, but many of our full-time colleagues are either otherwise involved, or even dismissive or hostile to our activism.

But this can’t stop you from trying.

Whatever the full-time part-time relationship is at your institution, it is in fact very much in the interest of the overwhelming majority of full-time faculty to seriously address adjunctification. What follows is, through your own means, what they need to hear and know.

Here’s a big surprise—administrators hire adjunct faculty because they are directed to provide a certain volume (as opposed to quality) of instruction at an ever-decreasing price. This doesn’t mean that many Deans, Vice Presidents, Presidents, and Chancellors don’t care about the quality of instruction, but in an American political culture which has consistently cut public higher education funding since the Reagan Era, they’re not really allowed to at the expense of their careers.  Beyond the administrators themselves are the elected/appointed classes, often guided by political exhortations derived from market-driven notions of success which view students as widgets and teachers as cogs.  Lost in the process are real study, inquiry, empathy, and most of all understanding.  Of course, and adjuncts, give to the institution, and to everyone besides themselves, a certain “flexibility” by which study, inquiry, empathy and understanding can be skirted.

There are clearly costs to adjuncts and their families, but also to full-time faculty.

Obviously, the loss of other full-time faculty means that the remaining full-time faculty are inevitably going to be given more departmental responsibilities, which in the wake of the measure-and-confirm-teacher-accountability-through-mass-data-collection movement (see Student Learning Outcomes) means an increasingly burdensome workload outside the classroom.  Add to this the increasing obligation to serve on multiple committees while maintaining professional development and research projects, and it’s clear that a lack of full-time colleagues doesn’t serve full-time instructors’ interests.  One might also note, with fewer full-timers, its means more work for the full-time faculty doing peer evaluations, as adjunct/contingent faculty are generally barred from evaluating fellow adjuncts, let alone other full-time faculty.

But quite frankly, the real dangers are far worse than this.

Administrators, to avoid direct confrontation with full-time dominant teachers’ unions, have generally chosen to expand adjunctifcation through attrition, but now, in a number of places, there are increasing efforts to end two-tierification, by incrementally destroying the very notion of a full-time job.  This has been the primary tool which has transformed a 75/25 full-time/adjunct faculty ratio to a 25/75 over the last 40 years.

For the most part, the academic community has done little more than acknowledge this, and has behaved much like a frog in a pot of water that’s slowly being brought to boil.

The thing is, in many places the pot in already boiling. 

The move against tenure in Higher Ed has been out there for some time, but in the wake of the destruction of tenure and collective bargaining in Wisconsin for teachers in general, legislation directly aimed at ending the practice of tenure in Higher Ed. has been introduced in both Missouri and Iowa.

By the way, for those of you in supposedly union and education-friendly states like California, don’t kid yourselves.  There are serious moves that have been undertaken against tenure, and not led by anti-Higher Ed. Republicans, but supposedly education and labor friendly Democrats. One of California’s present candidates for governor is former-LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who, under then-Governor Schwarzenegger, pushed for the passage of AB1381, a measure which allowed the Mayor to supercede the authority of the elected board of education.  Villaraigosa himself supported the expansion of charter schools.

To those not aware of how this relates to adjunctification, charter school teachers are for the most part non-union, get paid significantly less than their public school counterparts, have limited benefits and due-process connections, and  are treated as contingent, or at will workers. Sound familiar? Of tenure, and I quote, Villaraigosa stated, “It’s an antiquated system.” While Villaraigosa was referring specifically to K-12 teachers in this context, it is not too far of a leap to assume this thinking would apply to Higher Ed. as well, and if you read in the interview where he made this statement, he more or less implies it.

Villaraigosa is in fact one of a number of supposedly pro-union, pro-education politicians thinking along these lines.  Think New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, or New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, both from very blue, and supposedly pro-union states.

In yet other cases, rather than wait for the end of tenure, some institutions are simply eliminating some full-time positions outright.  By the way, if you read the last article I provided a link to, it shows how the university tries to soft-pedal the cuts by suggesting the cuts were simply done to deal with supply/demand issues, then offers how it will allow some of the full-time faculty to “apply for the new positions.”  These “new” positions were inevitably teaching the same coursework under an adjunct contract.

More disturbing and prophetic is the recent posting of a position of for a Language program Director at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The job opening, which lists a PhD. and a plethora of work-related experience as preferred requirements, involves the following job duties:

  1. Coordinate 14 separate courses in blended German from first through fourth semesters.
  2. Supervise and train 10 teaching assistants
  3. Teach three courses of one’s own
  4. Participate in Departmental events, “like High School Day”

Now here’s the catch, this job, which by any standards of the imagination, is a job requiring 40+ hours/week, is being offered as a 67% position with “prorated benefits” at 28,000 a year.  Understand, this is a job in Chicago where the average rent is over $1500/month, and is the 12th most expensive community in the US.

This represents something far worse.  Now instead of breaking up the full-time job into smaller contingent chunks, institutions are simply putting forth direct full-time jobs under part-time working conditions.

So long as marginalizing academic workers through contingency is unchecked, it will become the tool by which academia in general is destroyed, and no faculty member is truly safe from this.

All of this in a way, reminds me of the quote attributed to Protestant pastor and Hitler foe, Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

As Higher Ed. is clearly eroding into a vast sea of contingency at an ever-increasing rate and scope, it’s time for full-time faculty to speak out—for their own sake.

Geoff Johnson

A “Good” Adjunct

Campus Equity Week Prepping Part IV: Addressing Challenge of Adjunct Apathy and Reluctance

Good Adjuncts,

So you’ve decided to take action, or do a series of activities, or maybe you want to, but feel stymied.

Of the main challenges I have faced, and continue to do so, is dealing with the apathy or self-interest of my colleagues.  I know that some adjunct activists would want me to speak of fear first, and I’ll address this later, but I will tell you apathy and self-interest are far bigger challenges.

Some of you have heard the expression that organizing adjuncts is like herding cats, and to a large extent it’s true.  I constantly hear how adjuncts are busy teaching their heavy loads at multiple campuses with family and personal obligations to boot. I would like all these busy adjuncts to know that everyone (including myself) is busy too, but anyway…

Keeping it positive here, a lot of adjunct apathy is driven by the sort of tunnel vision that all academics and professionals develop where they compartmentalize their world and their reaction to it into a compartmentalized set of behaviors.  Activism necessarily involves getting them to step out of that compartmentalization.  These are the adjuncts that, while agreeing with what you’re doing, will stroll by a poster without looking, or never open emails unless they are from a student or immediate supervisor.  They also don’t vote in union elections, and only really stand up when they feel they’ve been screwed.

These are not people who are going to be reached or engaged by posters, emails, or general calls to action.  To get these people involved, you need to talk to them, frequently, and not just about the immediate ask you’re making, but about who they are, and their concerns, and in a lot of cases, it’s going to involve more of you listening than you speaking.

By the way, if you, as a singular activist, are going to commit yourself to trying to talk to everyone one your own, this is a fool’s errand.  You need to focus specifically or people you regularly see (though you should not just be going to one adjunct office all the time), and you need to have them talk to their network of folks.

At AFT’s Higher Ed Conference in Detroit this past April, I had the opportunity to listen to one of the more on-point and powerful union organizers, a woman by the name of Jane McAlevey, who played a key role in organizing nurses in Philadelphia.  She explained that in organizing, and this is also true regarding the undertaking of any action or mobilization, we need to recognize that some of us are “activists” and some of us are “organizers”.  To be to the point, the “activist” is someone who sees the issues, and wants to speak out, and is usually the first one to a call to action.  This is the person you can always count on to be there, but they may not be the one to get others involved.  The organizer, by contrast, may not be feel so compelled to speak out, but in a given worksite may be the one others listen to and the person who will get others to stand up.

The thing is, most of us who are involved in the early stages of planning actions tend to be activists, and we’re really caught up into speaking out, but we don’t do the work of cultivating organizers among our colleagues. This has to change, and it’s something I’m working on myself.

Another way to address apathy, is by creating options for levels of involvement, and to provide people with tangible actions which are pointed to specific changes.

Some people may want to speak, or do guerilla theater.  Some may want to come to a rally, or simply want to wear a sticker or a button.  Others may want to do an in-class assignment on labor contingency.  Embrace and praise all of it.

If you’re mobilizing, what’s your end goal?  Don’t just make noise and be done with it. Are you looking for signatures on a petition to put more money or any money in the state budget for adjunct benefits?  Is it a letter to the board of trustees asking management to bargain in good faith? Upon collecting those letters or petitions, are you going to follow up and explain what happened when you presented them, then communicate this to members?

What happens after Campus Equity Week is just as important as what happens before.

Of course, there’s the cynical adjunct crowd who argues that your actions won’t amount to much or be effective.  First, acknowledge at this may have been true (hopefully if you’ve had struggles in the past, you will have thought through how you can make things better), but point to the need to simply not accept the status quo, or explain to them the high costs of doing nothing. What is the result of not standing up to Betsy’s Devos’s anti-public education agenda? By the way, you can go local with this.  Ask any educator in Illinois what the costs of not standing up to Governor Rauner might be.  If there have been successes, you need to talk about them, and explain how they played a role.

In California, with the force of Campus Equity Week, Adjunct Action Day, and sustained letter-writing campaigns, we were able to 1) help pass a proposition which preserved 15% of the Community Colleague education budget, 2) secure a 70% increase in state adjunct office hours funding for community colleges, and 3) are on the cusp of passing an up to 12 -week paid maternity leave bill for female educators, yes including adjuncts.  The signatures needed to get the proposition on the ballot barely happened, and had these adjunct-oriented actions not happened, it may well have not made it on the ballot.  The office hour increase was heavily supported by the letter-writing campaign, and the maternity–leave bill was in part publicized through these organizing activities.

Lastly, there is the issue of fear.  First, while not to make light of it, often the power of fear is not in the actual capacity of an administration to actually sanction people, but in the perception that they have the ability to do so.

Now this next part is not directed at those who are in fear, but those who are not.  It is your obligation to show people that you can speak out, and if, in the event someone is clearly sanctioned for these actions, that you rally in their defense. Now I say this with the proviso that the individual in question didn’t destroy property, act violently, or engage in activity which violated their union contract.  Common sense applies.

As for those of you in fear, as much as one, such as myself, can try to allay you fears, you need to make your own judgment call.  If you’re afraid, and you can’t be convinced otherwise, then don’t act. But if you don’t act, others would still like, and deserve, your support.

By the way, I’m a fearful person too.  Any smart person is, but what I and you fear are two different things:

I fear that not acting out will mean a loss in wages, job security and benefits.  I have a child I need to support, and a wife with type-two diabetes.  I act out to protect them.

I fear that not acting out means my students will enter world of contingent labor where all but an elite few are part of a vast precarious poor.  I act out to prevent this.

I fear that adjunctification runs hand-in-hand with the destruction of American Higher Ed, and with it, the capacity to prevent calamities from global warming, to epidemics, to a deterioration of free speech, democracy, and even the rule of law. I act out to resist this.

I fear more what not acting out will mean than if I don’t.  I would say you should too.

Geoff Johnson

A “Good” Adjunct