Since I was
an adjunct (part time)
college professor from 1991-1998, I have a
great (and personal) interest in how academia
staffs itself. The life of an adjunct is, to
say the least, an interesting one...full of
peaks and valleys. It is also full of a
myrid of beliefs and myths...most of which
are passed off as "truths" without question.
The following commentary addresses and
critically analyzes three such "truths." I
originally wrote this column for another
purpose and I include it here as a matter of
general interest to those who already teach
or may in the future entertain thoughts of
doing so. Thus, its also a WARNING...beware
of ideological claims.
I'd like to address three topics or issues
that permeate the discussions about part time
or adjunct teaching in American colleges and
universities. These topics are most often
stated and repeated without question...as if
they are self-evident truths in need of no
further analysis. They are taken-for-granted
and become the foundation for further
observations, as well as strategy. I'd
suggest that we need to take an
unconventional look at some of these
"conventional" assumptions and this is what I
propose to do in this column. The treatment
here will necessarily be short, but hopefully
suggestive of further analysis and fuller
research. Each, alone, could suffice as a
columm topic, but for now I'll hit just the
highlights.
These are the topics I will address: Are
adjuncts exploited? Is there an
over-reliance on adjuncts in higher
education? Is the use of adjuncts damaging
higher education? I believe that each of
these is an ideological topic...the first one
from the adjunct's point of view and the
second and third from full time faculty
and/or administration point of view.
Regardless, the essential nature of
ideological thought is an "inverted"
quality...the idea expressed is an inversion
of the actual reality. Lets examine each
with this in mind.
To some the question whether adjuncts are
exploited is just plain silly. Of course
they are...some people would say...and that's
that. What's this guy doing asking such an
obvious question? Well, on one level I can
agree with them. I know I was exploited
every single minute I taught as an
adjunct...especially on the issue of salary
inequity. I did the same work as the
associate professor on campus and got much
less money for it...a no-brainer there.
Likewise, in numerous other areas and ways
adjuncts are objectively exploited...but this
isn't the place to provide a laundry list of
these matters...I think most of us know them
very well. It's on another level I'd like to
suggest that this "exploitation" isn't what
it seems to be. What I'm getting at
is...exploitation is a rather relative term,
not quite so abolute as it appears. While I
would agree that one can be exploited without
knowing it, that's not my point here.
Rather, since most adjuncts like to teach and
be in the environment of a college campus, an
assessment of what happens to us while doing
so is relative to our wants and needs...and
just how much crap we're willing to put up
with in order to teach college. Yes, a
certain minimum level of money is needed to
survive, but that's true in any job in
capitalist america. There are lots of people
doing the same thing. While this doesn't
excuse the objective exploitation adjuncts
endure, we're also not the "lone ranger" when
it comes to this. Sure, countless adjuncts
need their jobs and income, but their
subjective level of exploitation varies
according to their own situations. I
personally put up with certain kinds of
exploitation because frankly, I didn't
care...I was teaching and that's where my
satisfaction was met...period. In short, I
think it is ideological of adjuncts to
simply and categorically say they are
exploited. Without an examination of the
fuller picture which includes the needs and
wants and benefits derived from being an
adjunct, the claim of exploitation is very
one-sided and inverted. I know my stance and
conclusions won't be very popular with some,
but I'm asking even those who would initially
disagree to assess their entire situation
along these lines before judging my overall
point.
The second issue that permeates
discussions of adjuncts is that there is an
over-reliance on adjuncts in colleges today.
This is couched in terms of a "growing"
over-reliance (i.e. its getting worse) and in
terms of a sacrificing of full time faculty
positions. But...why is it always presented
in terms of an OVER reliance? Yes, there's
no doubt that many schools rely on adjucnts,
especially at the community college
level...but its not only there. I recently
taught for a major university and by its own
reckoning and record-keeping, 1 of every 4
teachers in its system were part time
teachers. Without these adjuncts at this
school, its main campus and its branches
would have been hard pressed to offer the
range of courses and at the varying times
that they did. Why is this? Is this an
over-reliance or a NECESSARY reliance? Why
are so many adjuncts hired to teach at
so-called undesirable times...not to mention
undesirable courses...not to mention in
undesirable locations? Is it merely because
it may be cheaper to pay an adjunct rather
than hire full time faculty? I think not.
I'd suggest that it is caused primarily by
those who do the most "yelling" about the
"over-reliance" in the first place...the full
time faculty who...the higher you go in their
rankings...don't have to teach early morning
or evening classes...at off-campus sites they
don't like...and survey courses full of
unmotivated undergraduaes fulfilling general
college requirements...if they don't want to.
When you add in the reality that many full
time faculty don't have the expertise to
teach certain needed courses, this makes the
argument here even more compelling. No, its
not an over-reliance, its a necessary
reliance...given the need of schools to meet
the demands of students for certain
courses...at particular times...and often in
particular places. Is it really a bulletin
to anyone that full time faculty (especially
at the Associate level and above) call most
of their own "shots?" The reason I taught
early morning classes, evening classes,
Saturday classes, and prison classes was the
full time sociology faculty member on campus
REFUSED to do so. I averaged over 25
students in each of the classes I taught!
There was a need and I met it...the full time
faculty member wouldn't. Bluntly
put..over-reliance...my foot!!
This leads to the third topic so
prevalent...in fact, it is intricately
related to the ideological claim of
over-reliance. This topic is the
taken-for-granted assumption
that...primarily, again, maintained by full
time faculty...but now along with some
administrators...that not only over-reliance,
but ANY reliance on part time teachers is
"damaging higher education." I've even read
more than once the same claim being made by
adjuncts themselves. Damaging? How? Where?
Let's see...if it is damaging higher
education, doesn't that presuppose (call
forth a prior condition) that there must have
been a time it WASN'T damaged? When was
that? Was that when it was mainly full time
faculty teaching...when they offered a
limited kind and amount of courses...at
limited times? THAT was a "healthy" time?
Gee...I thought that was the kind of reality
that usage of adjuncts was designed to
correct...silly me.
Moreover, the "damage" claim also includes
the assumption that a large proportion of
adjuncts are less than fully qualified to
teach college courses. This appears to be
premised...and MUST be premised...on the
assumption that full time faculty are fully
and always qualified to teach college. The
"evidence" often given for this is the
greater number of doctorates among full time
faculty than adjuncts. This is further
premised on the assumption that anyone with a
finished doctorate is better qualified to
teach than one who doesn't have one. This
assumption covers discipline expertise as
well as teaching ability. While I know
there's a difference between a Masters degree
and a PH.D, I also know that real people hold
these degrees and people's abilities vary
according to many standards...not just
highest degree attained.
One other piece of "evidence" given is
that if adjuncts were fully qualified then
they'd have full time jobs already and
wouldn't have to rely on part time positions.
Of course, this claim is similar to the
circular reasoning that the "poor" deserve to
be poor because they aren't rich. Now lets
see...there is again no doubt some kernel of
truth to the claim that there are some
adjuncts not fully qualified to teach
college. I've known a few...observed them
first hand. But I wonder...is the proportion
of them unqualified any higher than the
incompetence of some full time faculty? I've
observed a few of them, too. Or are we to
simply assume that since they are already
full time faculty that they must be
qualified? Give me a break. Is there anyone
reading this who has attended college
somewhere along the line that hasn't had a
dork for a college professor...a dork being
someone who didn't know much but could easily
repeat and re-repeat what they DID
know...countless times? Or how about the
ones that merely read out of books for an
hour or two? In other words, despite the
ideology that college professors are smart
and can teach well...to anyone at any time,
many can't teach at all and aren't the least
bit interested in learning how to do so.
Adjuncts and the so-called over-reliance on
them are damaging higher education?? Despite
the presence of very qualified full time
faculty and the presence of
less-than-qualified adjuncts, I'd have to say
we better turn over this ideological
inversion...realizing that adjuncts have
improved higher education immensely and in
innumerable ways...the least of which is NOT
the enthusiasm they bring to the college
education table.
Okay, I know I've taken on a few of the
"sacred cows" of the adjunct issue in higher
education. It seems I've turned them on
their head...but in actuality I've set them
on their feet. The really slippery part of
ideological thinking is that there is always
that small kernel of "truth" at the core of
the ideological belief. This enables
ideological thinkers to say...ah
ha...see...look at that, and then pretend
that's all there is to observe and analyze.
What gets rationalized is that self (and
group)-interest is usually at the root of
most ideological constructs.
Its sad to say, at least for me, that the
self/group-interest of adjuncts is to
maintain their victim-status as
"categorically exploited" so they can
rationalize their constant need for approval
and acceptance. In other words, to "be like
full timers." Ask yourself, why would any
self-respecting adjunct WANT to be like them?
Yes, the "kernel" of objective exploitation
is real...but its a broader arena than just
this...no matter how serious that kernel is
to many.
When it comes to the "over-reliance"
issue, the self/group-interest of full time
faculty blooms fully. That paragon of
objectivity...the AAUP...mouths the right
words about this over-reliance, but its more
like code words for "lets get rid of them
completely." The ASA also mouths the right
words about treating adjuncts properly, but
then does little or next to nothing to
enforce it on the department level at various
schools. The evidence is clear and
compelling...very few (yes, there ARE some)
full time faculty lift a finger to help
adjuncts...their ideology is showing all the
time.
Finally, this is no less true when it
comes to the "damaging higher education"
claim. No, my full and part time friends,
its not adjuncts damaging higher
education...its full timers and always has
been. The ideological inversion is as plain
as the intransigence displayed about the
excellent job the great, great majority of
adjunct do...credit simply can't or won't be
given. Instead of working together to
actually provide a worthwhile educational
experience for our students, full time
faculty blame adjuncts for "damage" and
excuse their own shortcomings. Now THAT'S
ideology.