A recent study reported in the Chronicle demonstrates that tenured and tenure-track faculty do not seem altogether opposed to the increasing reliance on adjuncts and part-timers. You would think that all professors would care enough about the erosion of their profession to defend its cherished structures and practices, including full-time status and tenure. But it turns out that, while they are willing to defend for themselves, they are unwilling to do so for others.
Indeed, there seems to be a kind of Faustian pact between the regular faculty and the institution where adjuncts and part-timers are concerned. The latter teach mainly introductory courses or discussion sections, freeing the former for upper-division and graduate courses. Institutions have long recognized that faculty are willing to be paid in security and prestige as much as in cash. These, in fact, account for a good portion of the “psychic dollars” made famous by Governor Brown, and, best of all, they don’t show up on the books. But in order to maintain prestige, you must have a pecking order, and job security across the board creates management headaches. The solution? Prestige and job security for the few, the proud, the privileged; hard work with scant reward for the rest.
The regular faculty buy into this arrangement, some cheerfully, some with misgivings, but they all accept it and some even defend it. Thus, they become part of the problem.
I have observed that faculty tend to be politically liberal. They vote democratic, support environmental reform, advocate equal rights, champion the oppressed, decry financial abuse and corporate greed, all that sort of thing. Professionally, however, they tend to be ultraconservative. Just take a mild swipe at tenure, academic freedom, peer review, or the prestige of someone’s institution and watch what happens. I once asked a senior colleague, who acknowledged the usual catalog of inequities, whether he would be willing to give up tenure if it led to a fairer and more just system. He blanched. “They pay me with tenure,” he said.
Comments like these remind me of Dr. Paul Farmer’s wistful remark about the rich liberals who extol his medical projects in Haiti: “They want to save the world at no cost to themselves.”
As for prestige, everyone knows that reputation counts for a great deal in academia. Almost the first thing people want to know is where you teach. Once they pry it out of you, you can read instant judgment in their faces. They have pegged, labeled, and filed you, like a card in the hand, or in a catalog. Forget about your story. Forget about what they might learn by listening or asking. It is very hard to escape this sort of thinking, no matter which side you are on. Internalized shame is as common as outward humiliation in our world.
Indeed, hierarchy and prestige seem to have grown naturally from the rich soil of privilege and comparative judgments, which may begin with the simple and inescapable fact that professors have to grade students almost every day. We acquire the habit of judgment and discrimination so early that it becomes instinctual, even unconscious.
If I were to give you a random list of institutions, you could easily rank them by reputation and influence. I would bet that a random sample of your colleagues would rank them pretty much the same way. At the top would be research institutions with no students at all, such as the Institute for Advanced Study, followed by doctoral universities, and on down through master’s institutions, baccalaureate institutions, and two-year colleges all the way to community colleges and technical schools. With some exceptions for antiquity and elitism, colleges rank below universities. It’s clear that our profession considers teaching less prestigious than research, and basic courses less desirable than advanced courses.
All this suggests that the profession itself supports the adjunct and part-time system because it, in turn, upholds the system of hierarchy and prestige. When strapped for cash, they can still pay you off with privilege. If it works for you, it works for them. It just doesn’t work for the people at the bottom.