Skip to main content

An Attack from Within

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to attend a conference on Social Thought here in State College. The event began on Friday evening with a keynote address by noted sociologist Frances Fox Piven, a fitting choice for a conference with a focus on inequality given her work on poverty in the United States. Just as interesting as her address were a number of papers presented by current grad students and faculty the next day, on topics as diverse as the "Sunflower" Movement in Taiwan, the rhetoric of the C.I.A.'s kill list, and Sojourner Truth's conception of equality. It was incredibly heartening to see so much bright young talent, but what was less heartening was Piven's statement the night before that no matter how brilliant a grad student may be, the likely future of most will be the serfdom of permanent adjunct status.

Piven lamented the attack on universities, pointing out the role of states in gutting financial support, in administrators creating ever-more university bureaucracy while decreasing the number of faculty, and in the faculty themselves for not being honest with their graduate students about the diminishing chances of ever getting a tenure-track position after graduation. It was a sobering reminder that not all the attacks on higher education are coming from outside the university. 

Adjunct faculty have a place in higher education, of that there can be no doubt. In my own graduate program, working reference librarians, library directors, and university catalogers from other institutions would teach perhaps a single course in a semester that reflected their area of knowledge. Being an adjunct was a job in addition to their existing full-time, salaried positions that allowed them to make a small amount of extra money while letting the program offer a course on a subject that current faculty may only have been passingly familiar with, and freeing up the tenured faculty at the University to focus on courses within their own areas of specialization. It's a model that works to benefit everyone, but one that has become increasingly abused by institutions to create a permanent underclass of highly-educated, economically insecure individuals. Ostensibly to save money, the number of tenured jobs has decreased to the point where adjunct faculty make up more than half of university teaching positions, and these faculty receive poor wages and few, if any, benefits. Many adjuncts teach the equivalent of a full course load, but are not even given support as basic as an office in the institutions they work for. To reduce well-educated, talented individuals to this state, barely getting by economically and with almost no time for their own research, is little short of a crime against education and should be a source of shame and disgrace for all institutions who so abuse their faculty.

The very individuals tasked with guiding and safeguarding their institutions have done the opposite; by expanding the ranks of administration while simultaneously reducing the number of faculty, and abusing the idea of what an adjunct faculty position is supposed to be, upper level university administration has ensured that the quality of education at their colleges and universities is lessened. What use are burgeoning departments of student life when there aren't enough faculty in a given department to allow students even the chance of graduating in four years? Even in times of state cuts to higher education, which conservatives and libertarians assured us were necessary and would force institutions to become more efficient, administrators chose to continue to feather their own nests while demanding that sacrifices come almost entirely from the faculty side. My own alma mater is a case in point; state aid reductions led to a sharp cut in music and foreign language programs, while perhaps one or two administrative positions only were to be axed. The office of the University President made no sacrifices at all, while demanding others others forfeit their positions for the overall good of the institution. 

This weekend, I felt intellectually alive with the force of new ideas, of new ways of thinking about familiar ideas, and the vigor of academic discourse. This kind of culture cannot continue to exist if the numbers of underpaid, overworked adjuncts continue to climb, if the numbers of faculty decline in favor of more administrators. We have to demand that our universities do better than this.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...