An Adjunct Thanksgiving

I’ve spent the last three years working to make life better for adjuncts. The Adjunct Project is approaching its third birthday, and I’ve been reflecting on some of the successes that have been achieved since its launch. It’s been a good year for adjunct professors. Here are some of the things for which I’m thankful during this holiday week:

I’m thankful for the adjuncts who stand up for themselves and speak out.
For the adjuncts who recognize that they hold the power.
For the adjuncts who have decided that they alone can change their situations.
For the adjuncts who have gained the confidence to make those changes.

I’m thankful for other members of the academic community who have decided it’s time to step up.
For the tenured faculty members who have joined the cause and raised their voices.
For the administrative assistants who devote special attention to adjuncts’ schedules.
For the human-resources professionals who take extra care to pay adjuncts on time.

I’m thankful for the adjunct unions and their successes of the past year.
For Adjunct Action and the Service Employees International Union and the advancements they’ve made.
For the metro organizing strategy and the fact that it’s WORKING.
For the contracts that are being negotiated across the country to make adjuncts’ lives better.

I’m thankful for New Faculty Majority and the work they’ve done for adjuncts.
For Maria Maisto and her tireless lobbying and testimony in support of the cause.
For the attention politicians have begun paying to the adjunct plight as a result of that lobbying.
For the partnerships and collaborations that the New Faculty Majority has forged in the name of adjunct research.

I’m thankful for the media coverage that’s been given to adjuncts this year.
For the conversation that is now spreading beyond the boundaries of the campus.
For the mainstream coverage from news outlets like PBS and Al Jazeera.
For the industry coverage from Vitae, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, and other blogs.

I’m thankful for the platform Vitae gives me to speak my mind.
For the freedom I have to write about any topic I choose.
For the commitment my editors have made to telling the truth about adjunct labor.
For all the important stories I’ve been able to read and contribute to over this past year.

I’m thankful for my Vitae colleagues and others who continue to thrust adjunct issues into the spotlight.
For Rebecca Schuman, Sarah Kendzior, and Kelly Baker who speak truth to power and call out injustice.
For Karen Kelsky, Joe Fruscione, and Katie Pryal who are helping adjuncts escape bad situations.
For Stacey Patton, Sydni Dunn, Audrey June, and Peter Schmidt whose news coverage of adjunct issues inform all of our discourse.

I’m thankful for the promise of the future for adjunct professors.
For the fact that, finally, adjuncts seem to be gaining ground.
For hope that things can get better.
For all of the changes that will come this year.

Thanksgiving Day

Add your email to receive new posts the instant we publish.

Adjuncts on the Diane Rehm Show

The Diane Rehm show out of Washington, DC featured an important segment on adjunct professors this week. The public radio show has an estimated 1.7 million listeners. On the show Wednesday were Maria Maisto, executive director of New Faculty Majority, and Peter Schmidt who authored the recent Chronicle of Higher Education piece on the Adjunct Action national adjunct union.

The hour-long show gives a solid background on the current state of academic labor, and it also gives Maisto and Schmidt a great platform to explain the problem.  Some good discussions came from listeners, as well, who called into the show in order to weigh in on the adjunct issue.

Other guests on the show included two academic administrators who did their best to obscure the problem and deflect the issue by obfuscating and shifting blame, but Maisto handles them well by continuing to return to the real problems.

I love seeing adjuncts’ media presence continue to spread into more mainstream outlets. The adjunct problem really speaks for itself, so the key is just getting this message to a broader audience.

Lots of good tweets and comments posted on the piece, as well.

Check out the whole conversation on the Diane Rehm Show website.

Diane Rehm Show

Buy Your Very Own Ohio Adjunct!

You, too, can own your very own adjunct. All you have to do is move to Ohio and become a university administrator. Yes, folks, that’s all it takes and then you’ll be able to trade people like property. Ohio adjuncts live to serve you. They will do anything you tell them. And they cost next to nothing. Step right up. Come one, come all. Buy your very own Ohio adjunct and join the leisure class where we make at least ten times the salary of our workers and we don’t even give them health insurance.

Take for example successful business man and university administrative entrepreneur Mike Sherman, who has developed a new system whereby the University of Akron, at which he is provost, will trade their adjuncts with other area universities in order to best meet the financial needs of those schools. Savvy Sherman of course knows that adjuncts don’t have any needs of their own and aren’t actually real people, so he wisely realizes the only thing that matters is whether he gets to continue making $163,100 per year with a solid health insurance package.

Own Your Own Ohio Adjunct

After all, why take care of your workers if you don’t have to?! It would be crazy! Sherman knows that a carefully worded PR statement is as good as gold with the general public, which is why he points out that, “The bottom line is part-time faculty play an important role in all our institutions, and our focus is to deliver high-quality academic programs, and that’s what we’re attempting to ensure within the evolving landscape of the implications of the Affordable Care Act.”

Doesn’t that sound good? You, too, can appear to care about others and then turn around and throw them under the bus for your own selfish gain. Just buy an Ohio adjunct and a PR person and get started today!

How to Make Your Ohio Adjunct Behave

Now, when you buy your first Ohio adjunct, be prepared for some backlash from uppity advocates like Matt Williams of New Faculty Majority. They will try to assert silly claims like you are “driving down wages to balance [your] budgets on the backs of part-time faculty.” But we all know that’s not true. We’re actually helping the adjuncts by keeping them running around to different campuses in order to make a living. I mean, who needs health insurance when you’re staying that active?! Am I right?

Other meddling critics might compare you to a public company with questionable labor practices:

@josh_boldt If article were re Walmart or Starbucks and how they plan to keep hours down to end-run ACA, response wd b, “that’s despicable.”

— Robin Wharton (@rswharton) May 7, 2013

But, wait a minute. You run a university! Universities never commit labor crimes. They’re liberal! So no need to worry about that criticism either.

The number one secret to keeping your Ohio adjunct in line is making sure she works constantly. The great Sherman knows this and you should, too. Nobody will challenge you when they’re too tired to fight. Keep your adjunct teaching at least six classes at a time and you’ll never fear an insurrection. Make sure your adjunct works at no fewer than three different schools and never ever makes more than $40,000/year. And, of course, take away your adjunct’s health insurance so he can never afford to take a day off.

Here are the Big Five rules every Adjunct Owner must remember:

  1. Always keep a firm hand.
  2. Never let your adjuncts have hope.
  3. Pay them poverty wages.
  4. Keep them busy.
  5. And whatever you do, don’t allow them to stay in one place too long.

If you follow these simple guidelines, you, too can own your very own Ohio adjunct.


Also, be on the lookout for troublemakers like these two:


MLA 2013 Convention and the Year of the Adjunct

Did you feel it?

During the first weekend of 2013, Boston pulsed to the beat of the adjunct. At the MLA 2013 Convention, you couldn’t turn around without hearing about contingent faculty issues in one form or another.

It all began on Thursday evening when the convention kicked off with the historic, first-ever all-adjunct presidential forum. Outgoing MLA President Michael Bérubé presided over a panel that consisted of New Faculty Majority Executive Director Maria Maisto; Beth Landers, a French professor at the University of Missouri; and Bob Samuels, president of the California AFT University Council and a lecturer at UCLA. What an honor it was for me to speak in the company of these great leaders and teachers.

MLA Boston 2013

I had the privilege of opening the forum and beginning what will become one of the most important weekends in history for adjunct justice.

The massive ballroom contained the largest audience I’ve ever addressed, and I confess to being a little nervous. I knew, though, that I had to record the audio of my speech, even if it would be one more thing to worry about. After all, most of the people interested in hearing it couldn’t afford to fly to Boston and attend the conference.

The audio worked out pretty well. Better than I thought it would, in fact. I had my recorder right next to the pages, so you will hear them as they turn, but other than that, everything is pretty clear. In the first minute or so, you’ll hear Bérubé introducing us and then I start at about the 1:20 mark. I’m pretty happy with how it turned out. Hope you agree. You’ll see the audio player at the end of the post or you can listen here now.

More on Adjuncts From MLA 2013

But my speech was just one of many during this MLA 2013 weekend. Maisto, Landers, and Samuels all gave excellent presentations, as well. Several panels also featured discussions and papers on adjunct labor. Then there was, of course, Bérubé’s presidential address, a rousing call to action and passionate defense of the humanities and those who teach them–all those who teach them, including and especially those who do it for next to nothing.

As soon as he finished speaking, the place erupted. Maria Maisto and I stood up and the rest of the ballroom followed. The speech was well-worthy of the standing O, as was Michael Bérubé for all the work he has done for adjuncts and for the future of university faculty. Audio of Bérubé’s address should be available soon on the MLA website.

As if all this wasn’t enough, The Chronicle of Higher Education and I released the new version of the Adjunct Project to much excitement and buzz. Editor Liz McMillen and I fielded questions and listened to stories during a reception on Saturday, while two marketing professionals from The Chronicle deftly conducted demonstrations of the new site. It was more than I ever could have imagined last February when we adjuncts built our spreadsheet. We’ve come a long way and our level of public exposure continues to grow.

Read more about the weekend and MLA 2013 from William Pannapacker in The End of MLAlienation and What if the Adjuncts Shrugged?

Also, more on the Adjunct Project at Adjunct Project Reveals Wide Range in Pay and MLA Sessions Keep the Focus on Adjuncts.

Were any of you at the conference or following it on Twitter? What were your high points?

My MLA 2013 Presidential Forum Speech:

MLA 2013 Speech

First-Year Commodity: The Adjunct Professor Labor Crisis in Composition Departments

Yesterday, I spoke at the Thomas R. Watson Conference at the University of Louisville about the use of adjunct professor s in composition departments. It was a pretty big conference with lots of concurrent sessions, so I didn’t have a huge audience, but those who attended were engaged and a good discussion followed the panel, which also included a paper from Christy Desmet (UGA) on MOOCs, Deborah Miller (UGA) on the “managerial unconscious” in writing programs, and Kathy Houff (Temple) on online universities like Phoenix.

I really wish more people could have heard our panel because it was solid. At any rate, I wanted to share my part here on the blog. It’s focused mainly on composition departments, considering the conference was on comp/rhet, but the piece is applicable to adjunct professor s and the Adjunct Project in general. The presentation follows.

Disposable Professor


Disposable Adjunct Professors

I’m going to talk to you about the Adjunct Project, but before I do, I want to tell you a story that comes from one of its respondents. This story was posted on the Adjunct Project website, from an adjunct professor who identifies himself only as “dancesintheruins,” for fear of retribution by his institution.

I’ve been teaching at two institutions for a few years. I’ve had four classes every term for that entire time; either two at each institution, or three at one and one at the other. Some terms I taught as many as six sections, which I discovered was more than I could take on. Just bought a house not too long ago. For the coming term, however, both institutions offered me only one section, citing “terribly low enrollment.”

The term begins this week for one institution, next week for the other. While trying to get ready for the term beginning next week, I looked up my room assignment and saw the word “cancelled” next to the only section I had been assigned.

I understand that as adjuncts we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control and beyond the control of our department chairs. I understand that I should have seen this day coming–and maybe I did. What bothers me is that no one had the decency to tell me that my only section was being cancelled.

This professor learned he was unemployed a week before classes started and no one had even bothered to tell him! It would be nice to dismiss this as an isolated incident, but this kind of thing is happening at colleges all over the country. People are being treated with complete disregard due to the corporate university model which places money above all else.

The new career track for university faculty is that of the Disposable Professor. As we rely more and more on adjunct professor labor, we slowly surrender our power on college campuses. Contingent faculty are, by definition, powerless. Completely replaceable. No tenure, no bargaining rights, no contract, no voice. First-year composition departments are all too familiar with this reality, as they are staffed predominantly by non-tenure track, contingent faculty. Adjuncts, and therefore the composition departments they staff, are powerless in the economic equation of the “corporatized” university.

In response to this trend, I developed a study known as the Adjunct Project which is designed to gather information on this unsettling shift towards the commodification of composition departments. The data from the project is unique in that it is entirely crowd-sourced. That is, it was gathered collaboratively as adjuncts entered information about working conditions at their respective colleges on a live Google Document. To date over 2,000 entries have been added and the document has been viewed about 100,000 times. This presentation is an exploration of the Adjunct Project’s data, as well as a look at the ramifications that data might have on future discussions of the Writing Program’s precarious status as a commodity of the university economy.

First, let me give you a little background information on the state of non-tenure-track faculty. According to the AAUP’s latest “Report on the Economic Status of the Profession,” more than 70 percent of American professors are now off the tenure track. Seventy percent. This ratio has skyrocketed by 280 percent in the past 30 years. Almost three-fourths of higher education faculty members are employed not in tenured, but in highly tenuous positions. These professors have no job security and no voice. Most work for unlivable salaries and receive no health insurance, retirement, or any other benefits commonly associated with professional jobs in the United States. And each year it’s only getting worse. Non-tenure-track appointments have climbed 7.6 percent in the past three years alone.  At this rate, it’s only a matter of time before “college professor” is no longer a viable profession.

This trend isn’t going to reverse on its own. It only took me one year as an adjunct, during which I observed the warning signs and witnessed the mistreatment of my adjunct professor colleagues across the country, to recognize that something needs to change. Stopping a pattern this pervasive will not be easy. It requires a collaborative effort, consisting of discussion, data collection, and action. Power only shifts through solidarity of the masses. Although my own situation at the University of Georgia is pretty decent, I have friends at other schools who teach under much worse conditions. As one who always pulls for the underdog, I started making a little noise and, as a result, a national advocacy organization reached out to me.

New Faculty Majority and Adjunct Professors

In late January, I was invited to attend a summit meeting in Washington, DC hosted by New Faculty Majority (NFM), a national coalition which, according to the mission statement, is dedicated to “improving the quality of higher education by advancing professional equity and securing academic freedom for all adjunct and contingent faculty.” It was my responsibility to cover the weekend on Twitter and on my blog, Copy & Paste. A couple of the writers convened Saturday evening to discuss outcomes and potential future plans. Two distinct perspectives emerged from this breakout session, dividing the group on the question of whether NFM should manage state chapters locally or whether the national group should grant local chapters complete autonomy. We eventually agreed that adjuncts needed both a strong national presence to unite the movement as a whole, and also a way to connect adjuncts locally in order to take direct action immediately.

The next day, I returned home to Georgia and wrote about our discussion and about the summit as a whole on my blog, all the while continuing to ponder the problem of how to connect adjuncts both nationally and locally. A large component of this quandary is the relative invisibility of adjuncts. Because adjuncts are often prohibited from participating in departmental meetings and governance, they rarely have an opportunity to connect with each other or with the department. On top of that, many teach at multiple schools in order to piece together a living, so they aren’t able to spend much time on any one campus socializing. Finally, as you saw with dancesintheruins, adjuncts are afraid to become visible or to speak up because their jobs almost always depend on keeping quiet and doing what they’re told. As you can see, any attempt to connect adjuncts to one another is inherently difficult. So, I came up with an idea I thought would address these issues of subalternity, disconnectedness, and anonymity.

The idea was to create a collaborative Google Document that was completely open and editable for anyone who viewed it. I would crowdsource the information (pay, benefits, contracts, etc.) which had been swept under the rug for decades by asking the adjuncts themselves to report it. No one knows the working conditions better than those who live them every day. I set up the document as a Google spreadsheet, entered my own information for adjunct professor conditions at the University of Georgia (which, as I mentioned, are quite good compared to most schools), and began sharing. When I created the spreadsheet I remember thinking how great it would be if we could get a sampling of 100-200 different schools. This would allow us to have a pretty good idea of median working conditions for adjuncts across the country.

The response was overwhelming. Within a week we had crossed the 1,000 mark. The interest generated by the spreadsheet was unexpected. It was just strikingly clear adjuncts across the country were eager for a data repository such as this one. Social media fueled the spreadsheet’s rapid expansion; everyone wanted to add their schools and to see how they compared with others.

We know now, based on the data gleaned from the spreadsheet, that the national average for instructor pay is less than $3,000. In many cases, it is far less. A quick scan of the spreadsheet reveals that many adjuncts, in fact, earn closer to $2,000 per course. Calculating these per-course pay rates annually exposes the stark reality that the average adjunct professor who teaches a 5/5 course load is barely cracking $20,000. And that’s without health insurance or a retirement package.

Connection to Economic Power for Adjuncts

Earlier, I alluded to the Adjunct Project’s ability to shift power to the workers. As the university becomes increasingly corporatized, the purpose of higher education is less and less about learning and more about making money. We just have to recognize that this is the case, and stop pretending it’s not. With that in mind, if our universities are profit-driven, we should keep in mind that, in Capitalism, the corporation has no conscience. People and ideas matter only insofar as their ability to generate profit.

And this is what concerns me. Based on the data gleaned from the Adjunct Project, it’s clear the university faculty labor system is headed in the same direction. People–teachers–matter only to the extent that they possess an exchange value. Most colleges will release fully employed adjuncts at the drop of a hat, even if they have garnered stellar teaching evaluations. I know this because I’ve seen it happen. I’ve talked to adjuncts who have lost their jobs with less than a week’s notice and no severance.

This dynamic then presents an obvious problem to composition departments, which are quite often staffed almost entirely by adjunct professor labor: it makes the entire department tenuous. The whole department’s existence is subjected to the mercy of market forces and to the budget in a way that just isn’t true for departments with mostly tenured faculty members.

As my fellow panelists will illustrate, the rise of MOOCs and of other forms of online learning could potentially have a serious impact on the preservation of comp departments. In this time of extreme budget cuts and loss of public support for higher education, administrators are looking to trim budgets every way possible, and if an entire department can be cut out and replaced by a Massive Open Online Course or absorbed by other departments under the guise of “writing intensive” or “cross-disciplinary composition,” it will eventually happen. When that time comes, if seventy-five percent (or more) of the department is made up of adjuncts, there will be absolutely nothing we can do about it. No recourse. By allowing our departments to be staffed contingently, we are passively complicit in the dismantling of composition studies.

Beyond that, running a department full of underpaid and exploited adjuncts is really just a disgraceful business model. The new composition department might as well be a temp agency. It’s time to stop it and take back our departments and our dignity, and to show some respect to our teaching colleagues.

The first step towards turning this trend is to demand contracts for our composition faculty members. We should never accept nor should we offer anything less than an annual contract. Contract length should rise with seniority–one year, then three, then five. Adjuncts are professionals and they should not have to reapply for their jobs every semester, and wonder whether or not they will be able to pay rent in January.

The other part of this equation is simple. Adjuncts should be paid a living wage in exchange for their work. In the past, most adjuncts were otherwise employed and taught one or two classes to supplement that income, but that is obviously not the case any more. If universities are going to employ adjuncts with a full-time courseload, those adjuncts should be paid accordingly. Again, it’s time to stop pretending this isn’t the case. The MLA has recommended $6800 for every semester-long course, which is more than double the national average according to the Adjunct Project data. Clearly, adjunct pay will vary according to region, cost of living, and institution, but there is no excuse for any school to pay an adjunct professor less than $4000 per course, meaning that teacher would earn $32,000 to teach a 4/4 courseload. Everyone here can probably agree that’s a very reasonable standard.

The Teaching Track: An Adjunct Professor Alternative

In order to accomplish this shift and remediate the increasing precarity of our departments, we will need to accomplish a dramatic re-branding of the concept of adjunct professorship. Now, that sounds difficult, but it’s really not that bad. We just need to redefine the terms of our non-tenure-track appointments in a way that both legitimizes the adjunct professor and also benefits the department and the university.

You may have read the appropriately-timed Chronicle piece this week by Robin Wilson called “2 Tracks For Faculty.” Robin and I spoke on the phone for an hour or so while she was working on the piece and then we exchanged several follow up emails about this idea of the teaching track. She beat me to press on it.

For those of you who missed the piece, here’s the deal. I call this rebranded educator role a “Teaching Track” professorship. When a professor is hired for the teaching track he or she would be offered an annual or a multiyear contract with a specified salary. Because this professor is hired to teach and will likely have minimal publication expectations, he will teach a full courseload, similar to that which many schools now call “lecturers.” Teaching track professors might be evaluated based on classroom observations, innovative teaching materials, and student feedback. After fulfilling, say, two three-year contracts, teaching track professors would be given a more semi-permanent contract–like a 10-year–that would suggest confidence and long term security.

I do encourage you to check out Robin Wilson’s piece for more details on our plan, if this idea interests. Great discussion in the comments, as well.

The main point is that, if a department consistently has five sections taught by adjuncts, they should instead hire a teaching track professor with a multiyear contract and bring stability to the department, thereby strengthening it and legitimizing and professionalizing the teaching track.

What Happens if Precarity Continues for the Adjunct Professor and Composition Departments?

Returning to the data from the Adjunct Project, I’d like to point out a couple statistics that will give you an idea of how bad things are getting in our composition departments (in case you didn’t already know).

  1. Almost two-thirds of all the respondents listed his or her department as English, Composition, Writing, Humanities, or some variation of these fields–well over 1000 entries. Just to give you an idea here, the next most cited department is sociology, with about 100 entries.
  2. Of those English department adjuncts, approximately 97% pointed out that the duration of their contracts is a single semester or that they do not even have a contract at all.

Therefore, English departments are by far the worst offenders in the exploitation of the adjunct professor. And, to make matters worse, we English departments have created for ourselves a workforce that has no security and no long term future, thereby effectively designing departments that are built on a foundation of sand and have zero bargaining power in the university economy.

Can we turn this trend around? Yes, we can. I don’t pretend to be an expert in university politics or in collective bargaining–I’ve never participated in either. In fact, as you may know, this is only my third year as an adjunct. So, I’m fairly new to this whole system, but I can tell you what I’ve observed, as I have done today. I can tell you that if something doesn’t change, our composition departments are going to end up in serious trouble. I can tell you that universities are looking to save money every way possible in this new economy. And, I can tell you that includes cutting entire departments, absorbing them into other disciplines, or replacing them with cheaper online alternatives, if that is possible. Finally, I can tell you that, based on the data from the Adjunct Project, thousands and thousands of our colleagues are being horribly mistreated and exploited as victims of the new university economy, and that this mistreatment threatens not only adjuncts, but entire departments.

The key to solving this crisis of adjunct labor is collaboration, as we have seen with the Adjunct Project. Thousands of adjuncts and their tenured colleagues have joined together and declared that this is not acceptable. It is worth noting here that much of the support for the Adjunct Project has in fact come from tenured faculty members. This is perhaps contradictory to what one might expect, considering the rhetoric that often pits full-time professors against part-time professors. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a zero-sum game. Arguments espousing that logic are merely propagating the “divide and conquer” method of dominating faculty politics. Faculty members have a common interest which is the pursuit and the sharing of knowledge, and a threat to one of us is a threat to all of us. The Adjunct Project has opened an international forum for discussion and that forum welcomes anyone who is interested in joining it—tenured and non-tenured alike.

Please check out the website and join the discussion. Thank you.

*Parts of this speech are excerpted from a piece I published in the Spring/Summer 2012 issue of New Jersey City University’s journal Transformations. The piece is called “An Adjunct Collaborative: Economic Agency and the Professorial Subaltern.”

You might also want to read Crowdsourcing a Compilation of Adjunct Working Conditions.


That Which We Call an Adjunct…

Words are my life.

As a writing professor, I recognize perhaps more than most the power of language. I often dwell on my word choices for long enough to make most people crazy, but I do it because I know how powerful words can be. The perfect word can manipulate connotation so much so that it shifts the tone of an entire piece.

This power of language has been bouncing around the contingent labor blogs lately and it’s caught my attention. The basic argument is that we non-tenure track faculty members have historically allowed our names to be chosen for us. We have relinquished our agency and surrendered our power to choose our own name. As a result, we’ve ended up with titles like “adjunct,” “contingent,” “casual,” or one my personal favorites, “precarios.” It doesn’t take a linguist to recognize that all those names are titles of inferiority. By accepting those titles, we are internalizing the oppression and perpetuating the perception that we are, in fact, less important than our full-time colleagues. Therefore, I propose (as others have) that we reappropriate our faculty status by renaming ourselves in a way that distinguishes us from full-time faculty, but yet does not relegate us to some kind of inferior status by connotation.

I have to admit I’m actually a little bit obsessive about selecting names. I think it might come from my five years of experience in retail management during which I was charged with designing marketing and merchandising strategies that perfectly targeted the consumer mind. Beyond that, a chapter of my master’s thesis was devoted to postmodern branding and the role of the “brand” in the construction of the postwar American conscious. Anyway, the point is branding and advertising happen to be personal projects of mine, so naturally I’ve become really interested in the latest wave of discussion that is seeking to “re-brand” the persona of adjunct faculty.

The new name must be one that, first and foremost, lifts the inferior label from the adjunct profession. We are no longer “a thing added to something else as a supplementary rather than an essential part.” We are the majority now and it’s time we have a name that reflects it. So no more precarious job titles. As long as we are referred to in this manner, we will continue to be thought of as such.

Second, I think we do still need a name that distinguishes us from full-time faculty. “Non-tenure track” is too broad and doesn’t really explain the levels inherent even within that classification. The name needs to be entirely different and new, and it needs to be reserved for us alone.

Finally, we need a name that is forward-thinking and suggests the future of our profession. It needs to be a name that sticks and it needs to redefine our role on college campuses. I want it to push administration and others to see us in a new light, one that carries a little more permanence than we currently have.

After much thought, the name I’ve come up with is: Annual Professor.

This title satisfies all three of the requirements I outlined above. It lifts the connotation of inferiority. It distinguishes us from full-time faculty. It carries a degree of permanence adjuncts have never before had. It implies a position that is renewed each year, rather than each semester. Because of this, it puts users of the word in the mindset that this job is much more sustainable and enduring than that of the semesterly adjunct. In fact, I believe it will push administrators towards the idea that adjuncts should be given annual contracts, which would, of course, be a big step in the right direction. Annuals should have contracts that last the entire school year. Makes sense, right?

Some other things I like about this new title are:

  • easy transition from adjunct—both begin with “A” and both have six letters.
  • shortened usage: Annuals
  • highly-tweetable

Like I said, I have given this serious thought—way more than I should have probably. I’m really liking this title, but I want to hear what my colleagues think. What do you say? Has anyone thought about this? Other suggestions? The bottom line is we have got to stop internalizing this aura of inferiority. Changing our name is a good place to start.

The Project And I Make Our Radio Debut

The Adjunct Project rolls on.

I was on the phone for an hour this afternoon with Robin Young, host of the popular radio show Here & Now  that airs on NPR. The show is actually distributed by Public Radio International, but many NPR stations carry it. As far as I can tell, the interview will air soon (maybe as early as Friday). They are going to let me know once the show is edited, but I just wanted to give you a heads up so you can be on the lookout.

Much of the discussion centered on The Adjunct Project and the increasingly publicized data regarding the trend toward contingent labor on college campuses. Young addressed the recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education and she gave me an opportunity to respond to some of the comments that article generated.

To be honest with you, I was a little nervous and I don’t recall much of what I said. Eesh. Hopefully everything went well. I remember discussing the need for transparency, and specifically mentioning the fact that the usual cry of budgetary issues as a justification for low adjunct pay was a smokescreen and that I don’t buy it. I suggested instead that administration needs to re-prioritize how those budget dollars are allocated.

I think it went well, but that was my first major radio interview, so keep that in mind as you listen.  I’ll edit this post when I find out the air date. In the meantime, check out which of your local stations carries the program. Here is a station locator. It should also be available as a podcast.

The Disposable Professor

This one is gonna sting a little. The new career track for university faculty is that of the Disposable Professor. As we rely more and more on adjunct labor, we are slowly surrendering our power on college campuses. Contingent faculty are, by definition, powerless. Completely replaceable. No tenure, no bargaining rights, no contract, no voice. If the administration has no use for an adjunct, she is unemployed. No appeal, no second chance. The adjunct has no value beyond that which is exploitable by the university. He is a disposable professor.

We have all heard of the “corporatization of the university.” We know that story. And we think we know who is to blame. The evil administration, of course. And believe me, they deserve a lot of the blame for sure. But recognize also that we are allowing it to happen, which is worse in some ways. We are not taking responsibility for the fact that we are permitting the creation of the disposable professor by our quiet acquiescence. The administration’s job is to run the business side of the campus. They have budgets and they have to meet them. They cut wherever they can get away with it. It’s in their nature.

It’s the job of the faculty, on the other hand, to ensure those budget cuts don’t dramatically impact the intellectual environment of the campus. It is our duty to push back when the academic integrity of the university is being undermined in favor of making money. And we are failing badly at this responsibility. We’re allowing the business side of the university to cannibalize the intellectual side. Consequently, we are complicit in the university’s corporatization.

Sadly, as evidenced by the data in the Adjunct Project, English departments are the worst offenders. An overwhelming number of adjuncts who have collaborated on the Adjunct Project teach in first-year writing programs. In fact, most first-year composition departments are staffed predominately by non-tenure track contingent faculty—instructors who are unconscionably remunerated and have no job security from semester to semester. We are standing by while the administration tells us how best to run our departments. In the eyes of the business-minded administrators, the best way to run the English department is the cheapest way. Why are we allowing them to make decisions for us that we know are killing the intellectual environment of our schools?

Paying our colleagues dirt, providing no benefits or job security, standing idly by while administration gradually picks away at academic freedom and strips faculty of tenure. They are running a business. They will never just decide to favor the intellectual side of the university unless they are forced to. Unless the business side is jeopardized by the actions of the intellectual side. If we want the American university to continue to be a place of academic freedom and intellectual integrity, we are going to have to fight for it. Otherwise, it will gradually slip away.

Fighting the Disposable Professor

The single most important thing to remember here is that WE HAVE THE POWER. It might not seem that way, but we do. We are the ones who actually make the university operate. Without the faculty, the doors can’t even open. Not only that, but we are the MAJORITY. We have the power. We just need to claim it. This will never happen if we act as individuals. All faculty need to unite to save our colleges.

Although my project is focused on the working conditions of adjuncts, the problem is not confined to adjuncts alone. Nor is this is an adjunct vs. tenure track issue. Not even in the least. We are all on the same team. We all want to keep our universities the cultural meccas they have traditionally been. This problem of the disposable professor is one that threatens every single one of us. If not us directly, then the generation that comes immediately after ours. We need to work together to fight the perpetuation of the disposable professor. Our power is in our solidarity.

With the invention of the disposable professor, comes departments that are increasingly commodified (especially adjunct-heavy departments like English and Mathematics). We are allowing a dollar value to be placed on intellectual thought. I don’t think I need to tell you how dangerous this is. The university economy is shifting towards the hyper-efficient and away from the aesthetic, and we are allowing it to happen. It’s time for the intellectual side to push back on the business side and re-balance this equation.

See Also: Crowdsourcing a Compilation of Adjunct Working Conditions

First-Year Commodity: The Adjunct Professor Labor Crisis in Composition Departments

The Adjunct Project

So I’ve taken to calling this thing “The Adjunct Project.” As Lee Skallerup Bessette pointed out, the Adjunct Project has gone about “as viral as you can go in academic circles.” It has been a wild couple of days, to say the least. I’ve had my eyes on the Google Doc about 14-18 hours a day every day. Pretty much any time I’m not standing in a classroom full of freshman or sleeping. I’m constantly backing up the data, and fixing the exuberant (and undoubtedly well-intentioned) “edits.” But hey, that’s part of it with collaboration. Totally worth it. I’m sure you’re wondering, so let me throw some numbers at you:
As of Thursday at 5PM→

  • the Google doc has been viewed just under 12,000 times (in 3 days!)
  • 529 schools have been added
  • at any given time, between 30 and 60 people are actively collaborating on the doc
  • traffic referrals: 6000 from Facebook, 800 from Twitter, 700 from Tumblr, 300 from Crooked Timber, 300 from The Chronicle, 100 from Inside HigherEd, and hundreds of other sources
  • gained international attention (I have personally been contacted by professors in Canada, Australia, Spain, and England.)

Hmm . . . I think it’s safe to say we have people’s attention.

The question everyone keeps asking me is what now? What will we do with this data? Where do we go from here?
Well, to be honest with you, I’m working on answers to those questions at this very moment. New schools are still being added every hour. The data is really useful for studying one school, but as far as comparing multiple schools, it’s kind of a mess. Some of you have pointed out to me the importance of considering the cost of living when comparing schools. This is certainly true, and it’s something I will do my best to consider. Stacey Donohue of Central Oregon Community College also made a great point about the need to distinguish between community colleges and four-year universities. Very important that we keep these factors in mind as we cull the data.
Basically, there are a lot of exciting, but yet to be determined possibilities for The Adjunct Project. I’m sure we will find many more great uses, but here are a few things I can definitely tell you I’ll do:
  1. Publish the results publicly to a static webpage (and probably a dynamic one, as well).
  2. Continue collecting data.
  3. Work to create some kind of ranking system.
  4. Contact some of you for follow-up information.
  5. Work towards publishing the data somewhere. Any publishers want to throw some money at a book? :)

These are some of my plans. But ultimately, The Adjunct Project is for the adjuncts. We created this thing, and it is beautiful. Nothing like it has ever been done before. We stood up to the bullies. This is the beginning of a national movement by the people, for the people. Our collaborative effort has created one of the most useful documents ever written in our quest for adjunct justice. Keep this energy going. We are forcing ourselves into the spotlight. People have to listen because we are shouting. Don’t stop. This goes for both adjuncts and also for those sympathetic to the adjunct cause (there are many of you who support us, and we thank you).

Keep the Adjunct Project Energy Going:

  1. Compare your school with others. Do your best to match up with similar schools (size, cost of living, 2-year/4-year,etc.)
  2. Connect with other adjuncts in your area. Get contact info from the doc and unite. We’re all in this together. I promise you no one will think it’s weird if you send them an email or tweet.
  3. Continue to tell anyone and everyone. Try to get in the news. I’m working on a pitch to NPR as I type this.
  4. For you tweeters, use the new hashtag #AdjunctProject.
  5. I also just added a new tab at the bottom of the doc for “Adjunct Supporters” for those who aren’t adjuncts, but would like to show support.
  6. Contact me if you want to send more information. I will read it all. I don’t care how long the message is, or how trivial it might seem. I want to know your specific situation.

We did this. We have asserted our voices where we had none. And we did it with something that has almost completely disappeared from American culture: Real—no strings attached—sharing. Imagine that. Now keep sharing. Harness the power of community.

1. Inevitably, some of your entries have accidentally been altered. Be sure to check back and correct any accidents.
2. Special thank you to Michael Bérubé, Sara Hebel of The Chronicle, and Lee Skallerup Bessette for helping propel The Adjunct Project into the limelight.
*****3. As of 2/10 at 6PM EST, I have locked Page 1 of the sheet. I’ve become overwhelmed with fixing the (intentional?) scrambling of the data. It’s easy to fix by reviewing the revision history and resetting it, but I am having to reset it every 30 minutes or so, and it’s driving me crazy to be honest. Never fear, though, I added a second page. Continue adding schools on Page 2. I’ll eventually combine ’em all. If you need to make a correction to Page 1, just send me an email.

Crowdsourcing a Compilation of Adjunct Working Conditions

Google Doc – (update 5.24.12: Access the spreadsheet via the Adjunct Project website)

Yesterday, Michael Bérubé, president of the Modern Language Association and newfound hero of contingent faculty everywhere, published the essay “Among the Majority” on the MLA website. The piece is a reflection on the New Faculty Majority’s 2012 Summit he attended last weekend in Washington, DC, as well as a recap of some of the MLA’s recently-released recommendations for fair standards concerning non-tenure track faculty. In the essay, Bérubé specifically cites this beauty of a quote:

Following a review of best practices in various institutions, the MLA recommends minimum compensation for 2011–12 of $6,800 for a standard 3-credit-hour semester course or $4,530 for a standard 3-credit-hour quarter or trimester course. These recommendations are based on a full-time load of 3 courses per semester (6 per year) or 3 courses per quarter or trimester (9 per year); annual full-time equivalent thus falls in a range of $40,770 to $40,800.

Almost $7K per course! Most adjuncts have never seen anything close to that figure. I personally have taught at schools that pay right at or below $2000 maximum per course. Feel free to do the math on that one (Hint: a 5/5 pays $20,000 annually). You can be a terrible human being and still recognize that a full-time teacher should earn much more than that. Just in case you’re not familiar with the usual procedure, full-time professors generally teach much less than 10 courses per year. Some teach as few as three. The MLA’s recommendation is based on the assumption of a 3/3 teaching load, which sounds about perfect. I would venture to say most adjuncts would agree. Three courses per semester is ideal because it allows teaching to be the primary focus (as it should be), and it also permits some time for research and professional development. So, about $40,000 a year. That isn’t too much to ask I don’t think. Especially considering all adjuncts have advanced degrees in their fields.

Sadly, though, as I have mentioned, this level of compensation is very, very rare. Most adjuncts are paid far less. And somehow the university system continues to justify it. Which brings me to my next point.


I am so sick of hearing people say, “Well, let the market determine salaries. As long as people accept the pay, it must be okay.” This logic is completely asinine, and frankly I am surprised that anyone who thinks of himself or herself as an intelligent person accepts it. According to this argument, the exploitative post-Civil War sharecropping system, and the oppressive factory conditions of the Industrial Revolution must also be okay because “people chose to work there.” It’s pretty much universally accepted now that both of these systems were unfair to the workers due to the ultimate power held by the corporations in a time that the economic state of the nation left few options for the worker.

As adjunct professors, we are in a similar situation. Not quite the same—I admit that. But, similar. We teach because we love to teach. This is what we are trained to do, and it’s what we want to do. And the jobs exist. It’s not as though we are trying to force ourselves into a flooded market. Most of us are employed as professors. The need exists. The problem is there are few options for those of us who do it. If we want to be teachers, we are forced to do it for peanuts. Why can’t the adjunct positions we all hold come with a living wage? I don’t want to start on this all-too-familiar rant; the point is the market has no conscience. Everything is not up to it. At least, it shouldn’t be.

I also attended the New Faculty Majority summit and I wrote a post in which I discussed many of the same issues as Bérubé. I can’t even begin to describe how happy I am that he and the MLA (in addition to other groups like the AAUP and the AAC&U) have begun to take up this cause. It is a very real problem and it is threatening to endanger the future of higher education. The problem extends far beyond the adjunct professors alone. If the adjunct wages are not brought closer to that of tenured professors, there will be no economic incentive to continue hiring full-time professors. Why pay someone $70K when they can pay someone to do it for less than $10K? Obviously this doesn’t at all take into consideration the work done by professors outside of the classroom. It reduces everyone to a number. This is really a terrible way to describe any profession, but it is especially flagrant in the context of education.

I call attention to this flagrancy because ultimately, it comes down to the students. I have colleagues who go to work every day to teach young minds. To make them better writers, better thinkers, and better people. And then they go home and eat Ramen noodles for dinner, and worry about whether or not they have enough gas in the tank to coast to work the rest of the week. Ramen is no longer cool in your thirties. Trust me.

All I’m asking for is a very modest salary to do a job that I love, and for which there is a clear demand or else we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Apparently, Bérubé and the MLA agree.

In light of this new pay recommendation, I’ve decided to start collecting data about how many schools come close to this standard. By making this information public, we can recognize the schools that are doing a great job (like my school, the University of Georgia, for example). They deserve to be patted on the back for their good work. On the other hand, we will also be able expose those schools that have chosen to ignore the basic human rights of their employees and shortchange their students and their communities by devaluing the very education they pretend to celebrate.

In order to begin this process, I’ve created a Google Doc to crowdsource information from adjuncts about the adjunct working conditions at their respective universities. Things like course pay, benefits, retirement, and contracts. Let’s combine forces and establish which schools are doing good work, and which are doing bad. Fill in as much information as you feel comfortable doing, and be sure to tweet this document and share it via Facebook, email, listserv, or anywhere else you can think of.

At the summit, we discussed the idea of creating a “Hall of Fame” of the best universities to work for. I would like to see hundreds of schools get added to this list. Eventually, faculty treatment might even become a standard in the accreditation process. This is a good start. If you have current information on the compensation practices for a school, check out the document and add it to the list.

See Also:

The Disposable Professor

First-Year Commodity: The Adjunct Professor Labor Crisis in Composition Departments