Unionize All Those Adjuncts?–Let’s Not

adjunct union protests.jpgSome two-thirds of America’s college students are taught by adjuncts, and now the battle is on over whether these low-paid, low-status workers should be unionized. Adjuncts, also called contingent faculty, are teachers hired without tenure, paid a small fraction of those on tenure-track positions, (typically $2700 per course, with minimal benefits). All three college faculty unions–the AAUP, American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association–have recently ramped up unionization campaigns while non-academic unions like the United Auto Workers have likewise entered the battle. The stakes are high both for institutions and for individuals.

One does not have to be a Marxist to yell, “Exploitation!” Endless tales of “Gypsy Scholars” abound–young men and women struggling with no job security to teach as many as six courses per semester, occasionally at multiple schools, lacking any health or pension plan at a salary comparable to working at McDonalds. Meanwhile tenure-track colleagues, some of whom may be brain dead, enjoy a princely wage (with generous benefits) for teaching identical courses. So, what better way to eliminate this blatant unfairness than unionization?

A vision of exploited academic proletarians aside, however, unionization is a bad idea. And I say this as one who is currently an adjunct earning a tiny fraction of my salary when I retired as a tenured full professor. Paying adjuncts tenure-track wages, including benefits will surely make thousands happy, but this new generosity will not improve higher education.

Some simple facts. Adjuncts and those on tenure-track positions, unlike industrial workers, are generally not interchangeable. Especially at top schools, tenure-track faculty are closely scrutinized when hired and considered for tenure (and often even beyond tenure). Those hired have usually competed against hundreds of applicants. Adjuncts by comparison are typically hired with minimal scrutiny and often lack a Ph.D. The academic difference is well-known to those who make these decisions but they consider it too awkward to express publicly. Treating current adjuncts as academically equivalent to regular faculty is in essence just a back door route to becoming a full-fledged professor for thousands of aspiring academics who cannot survive the normal grueling recruitment process.

Are They Getting What They Deserve?

Second, nobody is coerced into poverty by becoming an adjunct. For some it’s a welcome opportunity, not exploitation. I would include retired faculty who (like myself) still enjoy occasional teaching and regular access to university life. Also include professionals (especially lawyers and business people) who desire the prestige awarded by a university affiliation. In both instances, pay and benefits are largely irrelevant. Further, add those who cannot satisfy the Ph.D. requirement (ABD’s–All But Dissertations) but still wanting stimulating part-time work with flexible hours and impecunious graduate students still completing degrees. And don’t forget those who prefer life-long adjunct status in New York City versus a tenure-track position in rural Iowa.

adjunct teachers.jpgBack to the allegedly exploited proletarian academics. Let’s be blunt: I strongly suspect that the vast majority who willingly accept this supposedly rotten deal are getting what they deserve given their choice of specialization, academic records, credentials, work habits, stamina and other professionally relevant criteria. They have made their own bed, albeit an uncomfortable one. My advice to these under-paid malcontents is to change vocations or re-energize one’s stalled career, not seek equality via unionization. Imagine if violinists in a second tier symphony orchestra demanded near pay equal to that of a world-famous virtuoso since they were 85% as good and most concert listeners could hardly tell the difference? Yes, universities irresponsibly produce this surplus labor, but nobody is drafted into a Ph.D. program and it’s been my experience that by their second or third year most graduate students accurately know their fate in the professional hierarchy. If they do not like the prospect of being a starving adjunct, they should get out early. It is bizarre to insist that today’s struggling adjunct suddenly discovered his or her plight only after completing the Ph.D. and going a few years without an offer of a tenure-track position.

But, for the sake of argument, imagine that a university acceded to the demands of gigantic pay boosts and full benefits (this would be even larger if, as some argue, teaching and research assistants, graders and post-doctoral fellows were included with adjuncts). What now? Obviously these pay increases have to come from someplace, and I doubt that administrative bloat–the best place to cut–will be touched. Nor will salaries of regular faculty be trimmed since cutbacks here guarantee a loss of academic prestige. And forget about shutting money-losing athletic programs, let alone phasing out all the university’s commitment to multiculturalism, diversity and the like. This non-academic budgetary fat is sacrosanct.

Where Will The Extra Money Come From?

My own guess is that the necessary funding will come from yet one more increase in tuition or, for public universities, yet more taxpayer money. Less visible, but ultimately more relevant to the university’s intellectual mission, will be barely noticed cutbacks in research infrastructure–fewer journal (including electronic subscriptions) and costly book acquisitions, fewer specialized librarians, downsized technical support services, less seed money for research, a smaller number of grants for travel among many other cuts in services and amenities absolutely essential to first-rate scholarship. In a word, the university’s research mission will be cannibalized (“eating the seed corn,” as the old expression goes) to fund academics with shaky qualifications who made unwise career choices.

From the larger ideological perspective, upgrading lowly paid adjuncts is just part of today’s broader egalitarian project. Those unable to gain employment via the usual merit standards or having made ill-advised career choices or just lack the wherewithal to complete the degree or conduct serious research will now achieve their aims via collective action and perhaps even threats of disruption. How au courant. In principle indistinguishable from those unable to get past 8th grade becoming “high school graduates” thanks to political pressure to lower standards.

In fact, a little thought will show the closeness of the campaign to upgrade adjuncts and the egalitarian political agenda. It is an open secret, especially in many urban areas, that pushing unqualified minority students into college is a boon for an army of adjuncts who will teach all the remedial and watered-down introductory courses. Yet again, achieving “social justice” means more middle class jobs, in this case would-be university professors.

Can all these underpaid, often overworked, exploited adjuncts be rescued from near poverty without pushing universities into bankruptcy? The solution is obvious–thin out the herd. The economics of supply and demand are far superior to costly politically driven union organizing efforts. Today’s exploited adjuncts only need explain to the next generation of adjuncts what awaits them if they cannot gain regular tenure track employment. And with the once endless supply of warm bodies willing to teach English 101 for a pittance gone, salaries will rise and everyone will be happy.


5 thoughts on “Unionize All Those Adjuncts?–Let’s Not

  1. “The academic difference is well-known to those who make these decisions but they consider it too awkward to express publicly.”
    “A vision of exploited academic proletarians aside”
    Allow an adjunct to defend herself. First of all, if I’m good enough to work at your institution and teach your children, I ought to be good enough to be paid a fair wage. You’re taking the same tuition money for my lessons. I seriously doubt my department chairs are sitting around, talking about how I only measure up to about 85%, in hushed voices so I don’t hear. The low pay has everything to do with what a college can get away with, financially speaking, and not how qualified or talented a pool of adjuncts might happen to be. If the talent level was noticeably low, students wouldn’t attend the schools, business would suffer, and adjuncts would cease to exist. This is supply, demand, and smoke and mirrors presented to the parents of college students across America.
    And when you have to pay student loans and feed your family, and you cannot afford to continue your graduate work because of the cost of education (as you admit has something to do with bloated administrative salaries) you are being coerced into poverty.
    Lastly, you can’t just put “aside” a “vision” of exploitation. You can’t just delete the central conflict of the argument, for the sake of convenience, or the sake of the argument as you see it. Exploitation of well-meaning, educated people IS the argument. We don’t want to be paid what tenured professors are paid. We want job security and a salary that is fair relative to a tenured professor’s salary. If that happened, I might actually be able to finish my PhD.
    How logically fallible this column is. How simple to just write off the problem itself, then generalize the whole group of people the problem involves, and finally oversimplify their circumstances. For good measure, your solution is (essentially) for educated people to tell other educated people not to bother. If we’re really convincing, we can whittle down those smartypants warm bodies to zero, not even have colleges or a middle class, and you and your lucky friends who adjunct for fun and not survival will have more free time in retirement. Bravo!

  2. Funny if the original posting wasn’t so sadly true that you should use the term indentured slave’ because I have been using the same term for years in conversation with other people. The only way to stop this practice is to stop it, similarly to what Shawn suggested above. The problem is that there are many who use this abysmal income as a little extra spending money to finance vacations or whatever and with that attitude they continue to nourish the system. Or they have a good retirement already, but are not ready to retire for good and just enjoy the social and mental aspect of teaching. Before putting an end to adjuncting, I had worked for several years as adjunct already and knew that I needed to have a Ph.D. if I wanted to teach full-time in academia. Thrilled by the idea and paired with misleading signals and phony recommendations, I ventured out and got it all the while continuing to work in the same adjunct position. Then university got a native-speaker with a Ph.D. for its foreign languages program but the adjuncting continued. I assessed the situation because I I felt so degraded and abused and I avoided my own look in the mirror. There was no prospect of getting the job (they hired a non-native speaker to teach my native language) and that is when the indentured slave’ term came about. The university had no shame in asking me to stay on as adjunct. I declined the generous offer and teach now in a high school. Though my dream and hopes of teaching at a university may not have come true, I know I am now in a place where I am needed, wanted and, respected and where I can reconcile my philosophy of teaching with my principles toward myself. I now teach at a local High School. Since I taught for so many years at three universities as adjunct different subjects, I had gained invaluable insight into what incoming freshmen from high school were lacking in their undergrad classes and I can now prepare my high school students to help them avoid taking remedial English classes at college. The original dream did not materialize, I am fine with it now. But it took me a long time to work through the anger, frustration, and humiliation. I am glad I pulled the plug because it returned my dignity. No looking back.

  3. Professor Weissberg’s viewpoint is seriously flawed in that he conflates three (admittedly related) issues–unionization, fair labor practices, and scrutiny at hiring–without examining the ways by which a balanced approach may avoid his worse-case scenario: unqualified adjuncts achieving undeserved advantages through unionization.
    In fact, vast numbers of adjunct faculty hold credentials that equal or exceed those of tenured faculty. Instead of passing judgment on the career decisions or life choices of individual adjunct faculty, colleges and universities nationwide should establish reasonable credentials for assessment of adjunct faculty qualifications and performance, and provide much-needed job security. Faculty in each discipline are best qualified to determine appropriate credentials, as well as to consider broader issues, such as what constitutes quality research or publication.
    Unfortunately, it is much easier, and financially tempting, to dismiss, ignore, or delay action on adjunct faculty concerns. In turn, years of frustration are leading to the current push for unionization. Under conditions of genuine dialogue between all faculty (both adjunct and tenured) and administration, much would be resolved. But the longer adjunct issues are ignored, and adjuncts themselves caricatured as in Professor Weissberg’s article, the likelier it is that conflict, and the call for unionization, will only increase.

  4. Professor Weissberg’s comments mark him as a cutting-edge thinker…of the 18th Century. His philosophy here might be justly summarized as “Whatever is, is right, though this doesn’t mean it’s necessarily happy”:-)))

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *