“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” M. L. King
We the professors are complicit in our exploitation.
It is now a commonplace that higher education is in crisis. Exactly what kind of crisis depends on your agenda. The implications of California AB 955, as well as the recent California MOOC legislation, indicate that, if your agenda is privatization, you’re getting closer to your goal, despite the rejection of the MOOC initiative and the “dubious” future of AB 955. The door has been opened more widely for the propaganda narrative of privatization, and I expect to hear more about it soon. In this “business model” narrative, professors are turned into producers, students into consumers, and learning becomes a commodity. If your agenda, on the other hand, is what’s best for students, what’s best for professors or what’s best for the public interest, then the crisis in higher education is first and foremost a crisis of justice.
The longstanding exploitation and marginalization of adjunct faculty is unjust to students. The marginalization of three-fourths of the faculty of higher education distances teacher and student. Adjuncts, “freeway fliers,” in search of a modicum wage, are forced to limit their time at any one campus; when students look for their teachers, they can’t find them. Even when adjuncts make themselves available and, through heroic efforts, provide the instruction and guidance students desire, their efforts are thwarted by an administrative bureaucracy that enforces adjuncts’ temporary and peripheral status, resulting in, for instance, no faculty advisors for new student organizations.
The shameless exploitation of adjuncts’ professional commitment does not serve the public interest. Among other goals, the privatization agenda aims to cut “labor costs,” as if the purpose of public education were to turn a profit. To this end, for decades, retiring tenured faculty members have been replaced by adjuncts until we have a professoriate which is now 75% adjunct. The status of this vast majority of faculty is perpetually tentative and, by definition, non-essential. The public interest in a healthy democracy is not served by a professoriate whose voice and power is thus fragmented and weak, and is therefore less capable of protecting academic freedom or of teaching students to innovate, make art and engage in democracy, three things which are in the public interest.
And, obviously, it is unjust to adjuncts: the exploitation of adjuncts’ commitment to students is bad enough, but the oppression which accompanies it and that so often invades the professional and personal lives of hundreds of thousands of adjuncts who struggle to pay student loans, pay rent, provide for children, and live their lives on an income immensely unjust in proportion to their education and their commitment to public service is the depth of injustice.
Perhaps this crisis of justice began with and is maintained by our inability to see ourselves, or what is happening to us. Because of this lack of clarity, we are capable of ignoring or rationalizing the crisis until it seems that there is no crisis and the crisis then becomes unquestioned business as usual. How else can we explain the erosion of tenure-track positions over the last thirty years? How can three-fourths of college faculty be adjunct? There are many answers to this question, but our complacency in the face of adjunctification, I think, explains much. Because the truth is too difficult to face, because the forces that compel us toward corporatization and privatization seem insurmountable, we appear to have accepted adjunctification. Those who have descried these trends have been largely ignored and, although there has always been resistance, it never truly has been a unified and widespread resistance.
The crisis in higher education is an adjunct crisis, and the exploitation of adjunct is the exploitation of tenured. It is time we wake up and recognize what is happening. It is time we professors, all together, end our complicity with the efforts to adjunctify, corporatize and privatize higher education. At stake is not only a decent and humane life for the majority faculty, but the future of higher education itself.
We must reverse adjunctification; we must ask for more than pay equity for the second-class in a two-tiered system. From ourselves, and from those who are trying to reshape higher education based on free-market ideology, we must demand more. We must demand the transformation of the system that is being used to dismantle the professoriate. We must demand the restoration of a tenured majority by transitioning adjunct professors into tenure-track professors. This would be real adjunct justice.
We, tenured and adjunct professors, must face the truth. Our rationalization is complicity. Our silence is complicity. We must speak our truth. We must speak truth to power. We must demand justice.
John R. Hoskins
Reblogged this on As the Adjunctiverse Turns and commented:
Another outstanding #Blog4CEW candidate for #CEW2013 & a worthy addition to Adjunctiverse blogroll
Pingback: Psychological Wages: No One Becomes a College Professor to Get Poor | The Adjunct Crisis
Pingback: Why Are Faculty Complicit in Creating a Disposable Workforce? | The Adjunct Crisis
Pingback: The Need for Equal Pay, the Human Cost of Adjunctification, and the Struggle to Save Higher Education | The Adjunct Crisis
Pingback: San Diego Campus Equity Week 2014: The Message | The Adjunct Crisis
Pingback: NAWD Impressions: A Report From the Rally at San Diego Mesa College | The Adjunct Crisis
Pingback: How I Woke Up and Realized I Was Adjunct: An Adjunct Narrative from the Age of Neoliberalism | The Adjunct Crisis
Pingback: Gnawed or Odd? What is NAWD/AAD? | The Adjunct Crisis
Pingback: May Day 2017: A Post from the Past | The Adjunct Crisis