FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Isn’t It Time for Campus EQUALITY Week?

Campus Equity Week (CEW)  will be held across the U.S. October 26-30.  CEW started as a grass roots movement in 2001 and has been held every other year, alternating with meetings held by the Coalition on Contingent Academic Labor (COCAL).   Since 2013 CEW has been overseen by the New Faculty Majority (NFM), that describes CEW as “a week of education and activism that draws attention to the working conditions of faculty working on temporary, low-paid contracts, who now constitute the majority of college instructors.”

Fourteen years ago, it made sense to “draw attention” to what David Leslie and Judith Gappa called The Invisible Faculty (1993).  At that time, academe was in denial over the exploitation of adjunct professors and the public at large did not have a clue that colleges and universities were thriving on the sweatshop labor of underpaid professors.  Wearing buttons saying “A is for Adjunct” and T-shirts with the words “Campus Equity Now” helped to publicize the inequities of the two-tiered system in higher education.

But one million insecure and low-wage professors, some living on public assistance, now need and deserve much more than recycling old slogans and charging half-price for “part-time cookies,” as Green River College adjuncts did ten years ago. We need concrete goals and concrete actions to achieve them.

What are the goals of Campus Equity Week?  What are the unions, now representing well over a hundred thousand adjuncts, trying to accomplish?  When unions so often herald their equal treatment of their members, why is the word “equality” a fugitive from the contingent faculty movement?  Even the New Faculty Majority eshews the word equality in its mission statement, while its seven primary goals emphasize the word “equity.”

“Equity” was once a good rallying point, given the range of substandard equalitycontingworking conditions between tenured and contingent faculty.  Given the feel-good but undefined meaning makes it easy for anyone and everyone, unions or administrations, to jump on the “equity” bandwagon.  Even the nation’s largest union, the National Education Association (NEA), with three million members, has recently come out in favor of “equity” for contingent faculty in its September 2015 NEA Higher Education Advocate.

But what does “equity” mean? It simply means “fair” or “just.”  But in a two-tier system, just what is fair for contingents and what is fair for tenure-track faculty?  Is it the same for both or is it different?

Equitable treatment does not mean equal treatment.  As Jack Longmate has pointed out, not all those who say they believe in “equity” are “egalitarians” striving for equality and the abolition of the two-tier system.

Academe is awash with “elitists,” who ascribe to a system I have called “tenurism” because it assumes the two-tier system is a merit system, with the tenured faculty deserving of their higher salaries, benefits, and perks, and the contingents deserving of much less. Such tenurists are opposed to equality. (Longmate, “Dreams of Tenure and the Program for Change”)

And while “moderates” may express sympathy for the contingents, and talk about the need for vague improvements, their real goal would seem to be to shore up the tenured class by increasing their numbers.  When Barbara Bowen, President of the Professional Staff Congress (PSC/AFT) of the City University of New York (CUNY) and Vice President of the national American Federation of Teachers (AFT), wrote to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio last year seeking more full-time faculty and failing to mention the ten thousand adjuncts she represents, CUNY adjunct Sean Kennedy wrote an open letter in protest which quickly garnered over one hundred signatures from CUNY faculty.

It took us decades to get the unions to finally come out in favor of “equal pay for equal work.”  But union leaders turned the phrase back on us, saying in effect, “You don’t do equal work, so you don’t deserve equal pay.”  Instead of insisting on “equal pay and equal work and equal benefits,” unions continue to seek and accept a heavily discounted pay for contingents on the grounds that we allegedly don’t engage in such non-teaching duties as committee work or research.  (See my “Equal Pay for Equal Work”.)

What passes for “equality” in unions is the pursuit of “equal percentage” raises and cost of living adjustments (COLAs).  But in a two-tiered labor system these are not equal.  When full-time and part-time professors receive equal percentage increases, the full-timers receive much more money because their salaries are already much larger to begin with.  This process only increases the huge disparity in pay between the two-tiers.

After Campus Equity Week 2007, I wrote, “for all of the publicity and all of our accomplishments, we have not yet stemmed the still rising tide of exploited contingent faculty. The multi-tiered system remains in effect throughout academe, even where campuses have been organized by one of the big three faculty unions.”  (See my “The Future of the Contingent Faculty Movement”)

Though the unions have been devoting more effort to organizing contingents, with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) expanding its presence by organizing the private sector, not a single U.S. union has come out in favor of full equality and the abolition of the two-tiered system.  American unions seem quite willing to accept contingency and its lack of equality as a permanent given, to accommodate to it rather than fight to oppose and dismantle it.

While unions hold out the hope of improving the lot of adjuncts, none has published a detailed strategy on how they will accomplish such goals in an era when union strikes are increasingly rare.  SEIU has publicized a $15,000 per course salary goal, perhaps to mirror their $15 an hour minimum wage campaign, but they have not revealed a plan other than the mantra of “collective bargaining.”  That collective bargaining has been in decline for the last several decades, and that it has miserably failed the contingents for decades, is not mentioned by anybody.

Shouldn’t the contingent faculty movement be demanding equality and an end to the two-track system?  Shouldn’t the unions be thinking of ways to accomplish this?

There was a time not long ago—the 1960s—when there was a one-tier system in the U.S. and a shortage of Ph.D.s willing to take and keep tenure-track jobs.  Instead of part-time “freeway fliers” moving from campus to campus, David Brown’s The Mobile Professors (1967) talked about the shortage of full-time faculty members who would not stay put, instead hopping from one college to another seeking better pay and perks.

And the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association in British Columbia long ago abolished the two-tiered system.  But U.S. union leaders act as though Canada were really Mars and resist considering the Vancouver Model a goal to be emulated and do not believe that equality is possible for U.S. higher education.

Can’t we start by changing Campus Equity Week to Campus Equality Week?Shouldn’t we demand that our local, state and national unions and the AFL-CIO publicly endorse equality and the demise of the two-tier system, as the rank and file United Auto Workers have been doing in their recent contract negotiations?  Isn’t equality for those they represent part of a union’s duty of fair representation?  Could their endorsement of the two-tier labor system, with significantly different working conditions, be seen as discriminatory?

If we don’t set equality as our explicit goal, we will never get equal treatment.  We will continue to be treated in an inferior manner as non-citizens of academe, forever trying to play catch up with the moving target of superior tenure-track salaries, benefits and working conditions.

Why should a contingent faculty movement settle for anything less than equality?  Why shouldn’t adjuncts insist that those who claim to support them do the same?

Since U.S. unions often speak so much about equality in other realms, why can’t they adopt equality in higher education?  Could it be that they are so dedicated to the tenure-track professors that they see improvements to contingent faculty working conditions as a threat, fearing that more for contingents means less pay and security for the tenured class?  If so, the likelihood that such unions will fight for meaningful improvements for contingents is remote indeed because they continue to be dedicated chiefly to the tenure-track and what I have called “the tenure or nothing process.”  The answer cannot be simply “tenure for a few more.”

Richard Moser, the first chair of Campus Equity Week in 2001 and the co-creator of the first Metro organizing strategy in Boston in 1999, recently wrote me the following:

“As one of the original organizers of CEW back in 2001, I am more than proud of the continued activism by contingent faculty. But even the best of tactics needs to be rethought, refreshed and revised. It’s way past time for us to put full equality on the agenda. Campus Equality is what we need now. And, the grassroots organizing, rank and file protest and political leverage to back it up. As the civil rights movement taught us: we need ‘eyes on the prize, and feet on the ground.’”

As Moser suggests, it’s time for a change.  If U.S. faculty advocacy organizations and unions remain unwilling to embrace “full equality” as the singular vision for the contingent faculty movement, and continue to proclaim only vague goals of improvement, they should be seen as obstacles, not friends, of the contingent faculty movement.   And contingent faculty themselves must use discernment to avoid being hoodwinked by the sweet-talk of equity or parity, equal percentage pay increases, and other measures that effectively accommodate to the two-tier system, instead of challenging it.  Contingent faculty should insist on committing their efforts to eliminating the two tier faculty labor system and replacing it with full equality.  Our goal should not be to shore up the two-tier system, but to abolish it.

More articles by:

Keith Hoeller is the co-founder (with Teresa Knudsen) of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association and Editor, Equality for Contingent Faculty: Overcoming the Two-Tier System (Vanderbilt, 2014). 

November 13, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Midterm Results are Challenging Racism in America in Unexpected Ways
Victor Grossman
Germany on a Political Seesaw
Cillian Doyle
Fictitious Assets, Hidden Losses and the Collapse of MDM Bank
Lauren Smith
Amnesia and Impunity Reign: Wall Street Celebrates Halliburton’s 100th Anniversary
Joe Emersberger
Moreno’s Neoliberal Restoration Proceeds in Ecuador
Carol Dansereau
Climate and the Infernal Blue Wave: Straight Talk About Saving Humanity
Dave Lindorff
Hey Right Wingers! Signatures Change over Time
Dan Corjescu
Poetry and Barbarism: Adorno’s Challenge
Patrick Bond
Mining Conflicts Multiply, as Critics of ‘Extractivism’ Gather in Johannesburg
Ed Meek
The Kavanaugh Hearings: Text and Subtext
Binoy Kampmark
Concepts of Nonsense: Australian Soft Power
November 12, 2018
Kerron Ó Luain
Poppy Fascism and the English Education System
Conn Hallinan
Nuclear Treaties: Unwrapping Armageddon
Robert Hunziker
Tropical Trump Declares War on Amazonia
John W. Whitehead
Badge of Shame: the Government’s War on Military Veterans
Will Griffin
Military “Service” Serves the Ruling Class
John Eskow
Harold Pinter’s America: Hard Truths and Easy Targets
Rob Okun
Activists Looking Beyond Midterm Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Mid-Term Divisions: The Trump Take
Dean Baker
Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Destroy Insurance Pools
George Wuerthner
Saving the Buffalohorn/Porcupine: the Lamar Valley of the Gallatin Range
Patrick Howlett-Martin
A Note on the Paris Peace Forum
Joseph G. Ramsey
Does America Have a “Gun Problem”…Or a White Supremacy Capitalist Empire Problem?
Weekend Edition
November 09, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Louis Proyect
Why Democrats Are So Okay With Losing
Andrew Levine
What Now?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Chuck and Nancy’s House of Cards
Brian Cloughley
The Malevolent Hypocrisy of Selective Sanctions
Marc Levy
Welcome, Class of ‘70
David Archuleta Jr.
Facebook Allows Governments to Decide What to Censor
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Zika Scare: a Political and Commercial Maneuver of the Chemical Poisons Industry
Nick Pemberton
When It Comes To Stone Throwing, Democrats Live In A Glass House
Ron Jacobs
Impeach!
Lawrence Davidson
A Tale of Two Massacres
José Tirado
A World Off Balance
Jonah Raskin
Something Has Gone Very Wrong: An Interview With Ecuadoran Author Gabriela Alemán
J.P. Linstroth
Myths on Race and Invasion of the ‘Caravan Horde’
Dean Baker
Good News, the Stock Market is Plunging: Thoughts on Wealth
David Rosen
It’s Time to Decriminalize Sex Work
Dan Glazebrook
US Calls for a Yemen Ceasefire is a Cynical Piece of Political Theatre
Jérôme Duval
Forced Marriage Between Argentina and the IMF Turns into a Fiasco
Jill Richardson
Getting Past Gingrich
Dave Lindorff
Not a Blue Wave, But Perhaps a Foreshock
Martha Rosenberg
Dangerous, Expensive Drugs Aggressively Pushed? You Have These Medical Conflicts of Interest to Thank
Will Solomon
Not Much of a Wave
Nicolas J S Davies
Why Yemeni War Deaths are Five Times Higher Than You’ve Been Led to Believe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail