All posts by hcushman

Chomsky: Thinking Like Corporations is Harming American Universities

untitled

Chomsky: Thinking Like Corporations is Harming American Universities

There’s been a very sharp increase in the proportion of administrators to faculty and students in the last 30-40 years.

The following is an edited transcript (prepared by Robin J. Sowards) of remarks given by Noam Chomsky last month to a gathering of members and allies of the Adjunct Faculty Association of the United Steelworkers in Pittsburgh, Penn.

On hiring faculty off the tenure track

That’s part of the business model. It’s the same as hiring temps in industry or what they call “associates” at Walmart, employees that aren’t owed benefits. It’s a part of a corporate business model designed to reduce labor costs and to increase labor servility. When universities become corporatized, as has been happening quite systematically over the last generation as part of the general neoliberal assault on the population, their business model means that what matters is the bottom line.

The effective owners are the trustees (or the legislature, in the case of state universities), and they want to keep costs down and make sure that labor is docile and obedient. The way to do that is, essentially, temps. Just as the hiring of temps has gone way up in the neoliberal period, you’re getting the same phenomenon in the universities.

The idea is to divide society into two groups. One group is sometimes called the “plutonomy” (a term used by Citibank when they were advising their investors on where to invest their funds), the top sector of wealth, globally but concentrated mostly in places like the United States. The other group, the rest of the population, is a “precariat,” living a precarious existence.

This idea is sometimes made quite overt. So when Alan Greenspan was testifying before Congress in 1997 on the marvels of the economy he was running, he said straight out that one of the bases for its economic success was imposing what he called “greater worker insecurity.” If workers are more insecure, that’s very “healthy” for the society, because if workers are insecure they won’t ask for wages, they won’t go on strike, they won’t call for benefits; they’ll serve the masters gladly and passively. And that’s optimal for corporations’ economic health.

At the time, everyone regarded Greenspan’s comment as very reasonable, judging by the lack of reaction and the great acclaim he enjoyed. Well, transfer that to the universities: how do you ensure “greater worker insecurity”? Crucially, by not guaranteeing employment, by keeping people hanging on a limb than can be sawed off at any time, so that they’d better shut up, take tiny salaries, and do their work; and if they get the gift of being allowed to serve under miserable conditions for another year, they should welcome it and not ask for any more.

That’s the way you keep societies efficient and healthy from the point of view of the corporations. And as universities move towards a corporate business model, precarity is exactly what is being imposed. And we’ll see more and more of it.

That’s one aspect, but there are other aspects which are also quite familiar from private industry, namely a large increase in layers of administration and bureaucracy. If you have to control people, you have to have an administrative force that does it. So in US industry even more than elsewhere, there’s layer after layer of management — a kind of economic waste, but useful for control and domination.

And the same is true in universities. In the past thirty or forty years, there’s been a very sharp increase in the proportion of administrators to faculty and students; faculty and students levels have stayed fairly level relative to one another, but the proportion of administrators have gone way up.

There’s a very good book on it by a well-known sociologist, Benjamin Ginsberg, called The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, which describes in detail the business style of massive administration and levels of administration — and of course, very highly-paid administrators. This includes professional administrators like deans, for example, who used to be faculty members who took off for a couple of years to serve in an administrative capacity and then go back to the faculty; now they’re mostly professionals, who then have to hire sub-deans, and secretaries, and so on and so forth, a whole proliferation of structure that goes along with administrators. All of that is another aspect of the business model.

But using cheap and vulnerable labor is a business practice that goes as far back as you can trace private enterprise, and unions emerged in response. In the universities, cheap, vulnerable labor means adjuncts and graduate students. Graduate students are even more vulnerable, for obvious reasons. The idea is to transfer instruction to precarious workers, which improves discipline and control but also enables the transfer of funds to other purposes apart from education.

The costs, of course, are borne by the students and by the people who are being drawn into these vulnerable occupations. But it’s a standard feature of a business-run society to transfer costs to the people. In fact, economists tacitly cooperate in this. So, for example, suppose you find a mistake in your checking account and you call the bank to try to fix it. Well, you know what happens. You call them up, and you get a recorded message saying “We love you, here’s a menu.” Maybe the menu has what you’re looking for, maybe it doesn’t. If you happen to find the right option, you listen to some music, and every once and a while a voice comes in and says “Please stand by, we really appreciate your business,” and so on.

Finally, after some period of time, you may get a human being, who you can ask a short question to. That’s what economists call “efficiency.” By economic measures, that system reduces labor costs to the bank; of course, it imposes costs on you, and those costs are multiplied by the number of users, which can be enormous — but that’s not counted as a cost in economic calculation. And if you look over the way the society works, you find this everywhere.

So the university imposes costs on students and on faculty who are not only untenured but are maintained on a path that guarantees that they will have no security. All of this is perfectly natural within corporate business models. It’s harmful to education, but education is not their goal.

In fact, if you look back farther, it goes even deeper than that. If you go back to the early 1970s when a lot of this began, there was a lot of concern pretty much across the political spectrum over the activism of the 1960s; it’s commonly called “the time of troubles.” It was a “time of troubles” because the country was getting civilized, and that’s dangerous. People were becoming politically engaged and were trying to gain rights for groups that are called “special interests,” like women, working people, farmers, the young, the old, and so on. That led to a serious backlash, which was pretty overt.

At the liberal end of the spectrum, there’s a book called The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission, Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki , produced by the Trilateral Commission, an organization of liberal internationalists. The Carter administration was drawn almost entirely from their ranks. They were concerned with what they called “the crisis of democracy” — namely, that there’s too much democracy.

In the 1960s, there were pressures from the population, these “special interests,” to try to gain rights within the political arena, and that put too much pressure on the state. You can’t do that. There was one “special interest” that they left out, namely the corporate sector, because its interests are the “national interest”; the corporate sector is supposed to control the state, so we don’t talk about them. But the “special interests” were causing problems and they said “we have to have more moderation in democracy,” the public has to go back to being passive and apathetic.

And they were particularly concerned with schools and universities, which they said were not properly doing their job of “indoctrinating the young.” You can see from student activism (the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movements) that the young are just not being indoctrinated properly.

Well, how do you indoctrinate the young? There are a number of ways. One way is to burden them with hopelessly heavy tuition debt. Debt is a trap, especially student debt, which is enormous, far larger than credit card debt. It’s a trap for the rest of your life because the laws are designed so that you can’t get out of it. If a business, say, gets in too much debt it can declare bankruptcy, but individuals can almost never be relieved of student debt through bankruptcy. They can even garnish social security if you default. That’s a disciplinary technique.

I don’t say that it was consciously introduced for the purpose, but it certainly has that effect. And it’s hard to argue that there’s any economic basis for it. Just take a look around the world: higher education is mostly free. In the countries with the highest education standards, let’s say Finland, which is at the top all the time, higher education is free. And in a rich, successful capitalist country like Germany, it’s free. In Mexico, a poor country, which has pretty decent education standards, considering the economic difficulties they face, it’s free.

In fact, look at the United States: if you go back to the 1940s and 1950s, higher education was pretty close to free. The GI Bill gave free education to vast numbers of people who would never have been able to go to college. It was very good for them and it was very good for the economy and the society; it was part of the reason for the high economic growth rate. Even in private colleges, education was pretty close to free.

Take me: I went to college in 1945 at an Ivy League university, University of Pennsylvania, and tuition was $100. That would be maybe $800 in today’s dollars. And it was very easy to get a scholarship, so you could live at home, work, and go to school and it didn’t cost you anything. Now it’s outrageous. I have grandchildren in college, who have to pay for their tuition and work and it’s almost impossible. For the students. that is a disciplinary technique.

And another technique of indoctrination is to cut back faculty-student contact: large classes, temporary teachers who are overburdened, who can barely survive on an adjunct salary. And since you don’t have any job security, you can’t build up a career, you can’t move on and get more. These are all techniques of discipline, indoctrination, and control.

And it’s very similar to what you’d expect in a factory, where factory workers have to be disciplined, to be obedient; they’re not supposed to play a role in, say, organizing production or determining how the workplace functions-that’s the job of management. This is now carried over to the universities. And I think it shouldn’t surprise anyone who has any experience in private enterprise, in industry; that’s the way they work.

On how higher education ought to be

First of all, we should put aside any idea that there was once a “golden age.” Things were different and in some ways better in the past, but far from perfect. The traditional universities were, for example, extremely hierarchical, with very little democratic participation in decision-making. One part of the activism of the 1960s was to try to democratize the universities, to bring in, say, student representatives to faculty committees, to bring in staff to participate.

These efforts were carried forward under student initiatives, with some degree of success. Most universities now have some degree of student participation in faculty decisions. And I think those are the kinds of things we should be moving towards: a democratic institution, in which the people involved in the institution, whoever they may be (faculty, students, staff), participate in determining the nature of the institution and how it runs; and the same should go for a factory.

These are not radical ideas, I should say. They come straight out of classical liberalism. So if you read, for example, John Stuart Mill, a major figure in the classical liberal tradition, he took it for granted that workplacesought to be managed and controlled by the people who work in them — that’s freedom and democracy. We see the same ideas in the United States. Let’s say you go back to the Knights of Labor; one of their stated aims was “To establish co-operative institutions such as will tend to supersede the wage-system, by the introduction of a co-operative industrial system.”

Or take someone like John Dewey, a mainstream twentieth-century social philosopher, who called not only for education directed at creative independence in schools, but also worker control in industry, what he called “industrial democracy.” He says that as long as the crucial institutions of the society (like production, commerce, transportation, media) are not under democratic control, then “politics [will be] the shadow cast on society by big business.”

This idea is almost elementary, it has deep roots in American history and in classical liberalism. It should be second nature to working people, and it should apply the same way to universities. There are some decisions in a university where you don’t want to have [democratic transparency because] you have to preserve student privacy, say, and there are various kinds of sensitive issues, but on much of the normal activity of the university, there is no reason why direct participation can’t be not only legitimate but helpful. In my department, for example, for forty years we’ve had student representatives helpfully participating in department meetings.

On “shared governance” and worker control

The university is probably the social institution in our society that comes closest to democratic worker control. Within a department, for example, it’s pretty normal for at least the tenured faculty to be able to determine a substantial amount of what their work is like: what they’re going to teach, when they’re going to teach, what the curriculum will be. And most of the decisions about the actual work that the faculty is doing are pretty much under tenured faculty control.

Now, of course, there is a higher level of administrators that you can’t overrule or control. The faculty can recommend somebody for tenure, let’s say, and be turned down by the deans, or the president, or even the trustees or legislators. It doesn’t happen all that often, but it can happen and it does. And that’s always a part of the background structure, which, although it always existed, was much less of a problem in the days when the administration was drawn from the faculty and in principle recallable.

Under representative systems, you have to have someone doing administrative work, but they should be recallable at some point under the authority of the people they administer. That’s less and less true. There are more and more professional administrators, layer after layer of them, with more and more positions being taken remote from the faculty controls. I mentioned before The Fall of the Faculty by Benjamin Ginsberg, which goes into a lot of detail as to how this works in the several universities he looks at closely: Johns Hopkins, Cornell, and a couple of others.

Meanwhile, the faculty are increasingly reduced to a category of temporary workers who are assured a precarious existence with no path to the tenure track. I have personal acquaintances who are effectively permanent lecturers; they’re not given real faculty status; they have to apply every year so that they can get appointed again. These things shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

And in the case of adjuncts, it’s been institutionalized: they’re not permitted to be a part of the decision-making apparatus, and they’re excluded from job security, which merely amplifies the problem. I think staff ought to also be integrated into decision-making, since they’re also a part of the university.

So there’s plenty to do, but I think we can easily understand why these tendencies are developing. They are all part of imposing a business model on just about every aspect of life. That’s the neoliberal ideology that most of the world has been living under for forty years. It’s very harmful to people, and there has been resistance to it. And it’s worth noticing that two parts of the world, at least, have pretty much escaped from it, namely East Asia, where they never really accepted it, and South America in the past fifteen years.

On the alleged need for “flexibility”

“Flexibility” is a term that’s very familiar to workers in industry. Part of what’s called “labor reform” is to make labor more “flexible,” make it easier to hire and fire people. That’s, again, a way to ensure maximization of profit and control. “Flexibility” is supposed to be a good thing, like “greater worker insecurity.” Putting aside industry where the same is true, in universities there’s no justification.

So take a case where there’s under-enrollment somewhere. That’s not a big problem. One of my daughters teaches at a university; she just called me the other night and told me that her teaching load is being shifted because one of the courses that was being offered was under-enrolled. Okay, the world didn’t come to an end, they just shifted around the teaching arrangements-you teach a different course, or an extra section, or something like that. People don’t have to be thrown out or be insecure because of the variation in the number of students enrolling in courses. There are all sorts of ways of adjusting for that variation.

The idea that labor should meet the conditions of “flexibility” is just another standard technique of control and domination. Why not say that administrators should be thrown out if there’s nothing for them to do that semester, or trustees-what do they have to be there for? The situation is the same with top management in industry: if labor has to be flexible, how about management? Most of them are pretty useless or even harmful anyway, so let’s get rid of them.

And you can go on like this. Just to take the news from the last couple of days, take, say, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase bank: he just got a pretty substantial raise, almost double his salary, out of gratitude because he had saved the bank from criminal charges that would have sent the management to jail; he got away with only $20 billion in fines for criminal activities. Well, I can imagine that getting rid of somebody like that might be helpful to the economy. But that’s not what people are talking about when they talk about “labor reform.” It’s the working people who have to suffer, and they have to suffer by insecurity, by not knowing where tomorrow’s piece of bread is going to come from, and therefore be disciplined and obedient and not raise questions or ask for their rights.

That’s the way that tyrannical systems operate. And the business world is a tyrannical system. When it’s imposed on the universities, you find it reflects the same ideas. This shouldn’t be any secret.

On the purpose of education

These are debates that go back to the Enlightenment, when issues of higher education and mass education were really being raised, not just education for the clergy and aristocracy. And there were basically two models discussed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

They were discussed with pretty evocative imagery. One image of education was that it should be like a vessel that is filled with, say, water. That’s what we call these days “teaching to test”: you pour water into the vessel and then the vessel returns the water. But it’s a pretty leaky vessel, as all of us who went through school experienced, since you could memorize something for an exam that you had no interest in to pass an exam and a week later you forgot what the course was about. The vessel model these days is called “no child left behind,” “teaching to test,” “race to top,” whatever the name may be, and similar things in universities. Enlightenment thinkers opposed that model.

The other model was described as laying out a string along which the student progresses in his or her own way under his or her own initiative, maybe moving the string, maybe deciding to go somewhere else, maybe raising questions. Laying out the string means imposing some degree of structure. So an educational program, whatever it may be, a course on physics or something, isn’t going to be just anything goes; it has a certain structure.

But the goal of it is for the student to acquire the capacity to inquire, to create, to innovate, to challenge-that’s education. One world-famous physicist, in his freshman courses if he was asked “what are we going to cover this semester?” his answer was “it doesn’t matter what we cover, it matters what you discover.” You have gain the capacity and the self-confidence for that matter to challenge and create and innovate, and that way you learn; that way you’ve internalized the material and you can go on. It’s not a matter of accumulating some fixed array of facts which then you can write down on a test and forget about tomorrow.

These are two quite distinct models of education. The Enlightenment ideal was the second one, and I think that’s the one that we ought to be striving towards. That’s what real education is, from kindergarten to graduate school. In fact there are programs of that kind for kindergarten, pretty good ones.

On the love of teaching

We certainly want people, both faculty and students, to be engaged in activity that’s satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, exciting-and I don’t really think that’s hard. Even young children are creative, inquisitive, they want to know things, they want to understand things, and unless that’s beaten out of your head it stays with you the rest of your life. If you have opportunities to pursue those commitments and concerns, it’s one of the most satisfying things in life.

That’s true if you’re a research physicist, it’s true if you’re a carpenter; you’re trying to create something of value and deal with a difficult problem and solve it. I think that’s what makes work the kind of thing you want to do; you do it even if you don’t have to do it. In a reasonably functioning university, you find people working all the time because they love it; that’s what they want to do; they’re given the opportunity, they have the resources, they’re encouraged to be free and independent and creative-what’s better? That’s what they love to do. And that, again, can be done at any level.

It’s worth thinking about some of the imaginative and creative educational programs that are being developed at different levels. So, for example, somebody just described to me the other day a program they’re using in high schools, a science program where the students are asked an interesting question: “How can a mosquito fly in the rain?”

That’s a hard question when you think about it. If something hit a human being with the force of a raindrop hitting a mosquito it would absolutely flatten them immediately. So how come the mosquito isn’t crushed instantly? And how can the mosquito keep flying? If you pursue that question — and it’s a pretty hard question — you get into questions of mathematics, physics, and biology, questions that are challenging enough that you want to find an answer to them.

That’s what education should be like at every level, all the way down to kindergarten, literally. There are kindergarten programs in which, say, each child is given a collection of little items: pebbles, shells, seeds, and things like that. Then the class is given the task of finding out which ones are the seeds. It begins with what they call a “scientific conference”: the kids talk to each other and they try to figure out which ones are seeds. And of course, there’s some teacher guidance, but the idea is to have the children think it through.

After a while, they try various experiments and they figure out which ones are the seeds. At that point, each child is given a magnifying glass and, with the teacher’s help, cracks a seed and looks inside and finds the embryo that makes the seed grow. These children learn something-really, not only something about seeds and what makes things grow; but also about how to discover. They’re learning the joy of discovery and creation, and that’s what carries you on independently, outside the classroom, outside the course.

The same goes for all education up through graduate school. In a reasonable graduate seminar, you don’t expect students to copy it down and repeat whatever you say; you expect them to tell you when you’re wrong or to come up with new ideas, to challenge, to pursue some direction that hadn’t been thought of before. That’s what real education is at every level, and that’s what ought to be encouraged. That ought to be the purpose of education. It’s not to pour information into somebody’s head which will then leak out but to enable them to become creative, independent people who can find excitement in discovery and creation and creativity at whatever level or in whatever domain their interests carry them.

Advice for adjunct faculty organizing unions

You know better than I do what has to be done, the kind of problems you face. Just go ahead and do what has to be done. Don’t be intimidated, don’t be frightened, and recognize that the future can be in our hands if we’re willing to grasp it.

 

See the original AlterNet article here.

Let's Not Be Left Behind!

Dear Adjunct Faculty Colleagues-

These are momentous times for contingent and part-time faculty here in the Boston area, and for that matter nationally. Over 2,000 adjuncts have united in SEIU in Boston in the last year, including our colleagues at Tufts, Northeastern, and Lesley. Many other area campuses are organized as well: Emerson College, Suffolk University, Berklee College, Curry College, Cambridge College, and the entire University of Massachusetts system. Campaigns are also underway at Brandeis and Boston University.

Bargaining negotiations at Tufts are expected to conclude this semester. Part-time faculty are working to address a range of key issues with their administration, including:

• Pay parity with other teaching faculty
• Regular pay increases
• Access to affordable health insurance
• Longer-term contracts
• Recourse/rights over issues related to reappointment
• Professional development funds

Such objectives speak not only to the welfare of adjunct faculty members, but also to the overall effectiveness of teaching on campus.

So far, Bentley administrators have rejected any serious discussion about changes. But we now have it within our power to bring about improvements. To miss this opportunity will be to the detriment of Bentley adjuncts. As casino online the movement to raise standards for part-time faculty grows, it’s important that Bentley continues to be a leader in higher education, and a desirable place to work.

Now is the time to make sure that Bentley adjuncts – and Bentley University – are not left behind.

We hope you will join us and sign a union authorization card.

Lord Andzie-Quinaoo, Economics
Joan Atlas, English & Media Studies
Lilian Bobea, Sociology
Roger Danichise, Natural & Applied Sciences
Jack Dempsey, English & Media Studies
Virginia Egan, Natural & Applied Sciences
Thomas Finn, English & Media Studies
Bob Hannigan, History
Mary Hartman, Finance
Curtis Holland, Sociology
Tom Johnson, History
Doug Kierdorf, History
Barbara Nash, Natural & Applied Sciences
Gabe Repassy, Natural & Applied Sciences
Elaine Saunders, Mathematical Sciences
Clarissa Sawyer, Natural & Applied Sciences
Summar Sparks, English & Media Studies
Jonathan Speros, Accountancy

Bentley Adjuncts are Organizing!

Dear Bentley Adjunct Faculty Colleagues:

As you are probably aware, we lost last fall’s union election by only two votes. Since then the situation of adjuncts at Bentley has remained unchanged, and in fact, while all staff and all other faculty received a raise this spring, adjuncts did not. We are beginning a campaign to schedule another election for early 2015, and we hope that you will join with us.

Bentley, along with most other universities, has adopted a model that consigns a significant amount of teaching to contingent and part-time faculty. This model evolved over the last thirty years without meaningful input from faculty or any involvement from adjunct faculty themselves, but it has redefined teaching and the role of faculty in the academy. Gone are stable teaching positions with benefits and opportunities for professional development, replaced instead with a contingent workforce and a university with little investment in what should be the core focus of any institution of higher education: learning.

We believe it’s time to work towards restructuring this model of higher education.
Professors and adjuncts are turning to collective bargaining to challenge the model and change it so that it values teaching and does not marginalize contingent and part-time faculty. College faculty unions aren’t new, but they are growing to meet a crisis in higher education.

The problems in higher education have become so acutely visible that more and more adjuncts are turning to their colleagues and saying that we can’t simply hope for change, we have to create it. And there are thousands of highly educated people just like you who have decided to form a union.

All instructors — including full-time and tenured faculty — at the University of Massachusetts have a union and have made significant strides at the bargaining table over the years. They are no less professional or committed to quality teaching, scholarship and professional practice because they engage in collective bargaining. In fact, they are using collective bargaining to help define their role in the academy and redefine their relationship to both their universities and professional fields.

Furthermore, over 2,000 part-time and contingent faculty at Tufts, Lesley and Northeastern have united in SEIU/Adjunct Action in the past year. Tufts part-time faculty are finding that collective bargaining is creating a space for positive conversations with administrators, and we believe it’s time for Bentley to become part of the forward-looking trend in higher education.

A union is a way for us to strengthen Bentley and make it a better place for all of us, and we believe it is the only way we will make any headway to improve the working conditions of adjuncts. We ask you to think seriously about supporting a union at Bentley. Our effort to collectively bargain for better wages, job security and improvements that affect instruction is gaining more traction every day as we plan for a new vote early in the spring semester, and we encourage fellow adjuncts to join this effort.

All professors teaching at Bentley bring high-level training and real-world experience to their classrooms. Adjunct professors are no different, and that is why we deserve the fair pay, benefits and working conditions that truly recognize the education, skill, experience and value we bring to this university. If you believe it’s time to put Bentley among schools at the leading edge of this national movement for beneficial change, we urge you to support the upcoming vote through which we can form a union. Please keep in mind that we are all in this together.

As you consider the issues, we hope you will contact us. We want to hear your concerns and questions as we move into the fall semester.

Sincerely,

Joan Atlas, English and Media Studies
Jack Dempsey, English and Media Studies
Thomas Finn, English and Media Studies
Robert Hannigan, History
Mary Hartman, Finance
Curtis Holland, Sociology
Tom Johnson, History
Barbara Nash, Natural and Applied Sciences
Clarissa Sawyer, Natural and Applied Sciences
Jonathan Todd, Mathematical Sciences

Class Warfare

boston logo

Class Warfare

The army of part-time professors teaching at the region’s colleges are merely working stiffs at the bottom of an enormous and lucrative enterprise.

Letter to the Editor: Support the Adjunct Professors at Bentley

vanguard

Letter to the Editor: Support the Adjunct Professors at Bentley

An open letter addressed to the faculty and students

Over the past few semesters we’ve all heard of the effort by Bentley professors to allow Adjunct Professors to unionize. These professors successfully organized a faculty vote on the issue and lost at 100-98 votes. The small disparity indicates how contentious the issue is among faculty at Bentley and I’m writing to show my support for the Bentley Adjunct Professors.

Adjuncts (40% of the faculty) have taught nearly every student at this school. In many cases, these professors teach us the courses that serve as a foundation for the rest of our academic careers, such as Expository

Writing and the GBs. We call them “Professor” and usually assume they are all the same; however, adjunct professors are treated similarly to low-level Walmart employees: low pay, long work hours, no benefits, and forced part time work.

Unlike Walmart employees however, Bentley adjuncts don’t conduct easily replicable tasks that a cash register employee does and after extensive training they spend years working at Bentley to educate students about topics ranging from the sciences, to economics, to business. They provide an education that Bentley builds its reputation on.

Paid a small sum per semester per course (limited to 2 courses per semester), with no support for health care cost and no job security, it’s quite understandable why many of the adjunct faculty would like to be allowed the option to unionize.

For the uninitiated, unionizing would allow the adjuncts to negotiate with the administration over conditions of their employment, rather than having to do so individually. The administration has taken a stance against the unionization. It has mentioned it’s representation of adjuncts in the Faculty Senate and more recently a small pay increase as a sign of its responsiveness to adjunct professors’ concerns. Unfortunately the pay increase is less than virtuous.

It is a textbook example of unethical union busting behavior. Rather than allow employees to unionize, organizations provide a minimal pay increase to seem accommodating while avoiding the main issue: the ability to negotiate employment conditions in large groups. Such unethical behavior stains the “ethical” reputation in business the university widely publicizes.

In our coursework we constantly talk about companies that greatly invest in their employees, such as Google or ones that greatly value employee teamwork and transparency, such as Whole Foods. We’ve learned that successful organizations look at all stakeholders and by investing in their employees, they improve the product or service they provide.

Investing in 40% of Bentley faculty will have returns for the Bentley community for years to come. The university should not take a stance against adjunct unionization and should instead seek to empower employees in and out of the classroom.

Many students may be concerned that allowing adjuncts to unionize will inevitably increase student tuition. However, a special study titled “Academic Excess, Executive Compensation at Leading Private Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts” cites excessive six figure salaries as a cause of increasing tuition at private universities. Bentley has raised our tuition every year but continues to maintain a great disparity of income between administrators and their lowest paid employees – adjuncts included.

The university should be spending more money on professors in our classes and less time concerned with stopping the tide of recent unionizing successes in other schools, such as Tufts and GW. Bentley should be at the forefront of running its own business ethically before it starts preaching to the world about how great it is at teaching it. Investing in its faculty is the best thing the school can do to support students and we should all take a stand to support Adjunct Professor unionization.

Sincerely,

Moussa Hassoun

Read the original Vanguard article.

Launching a New Campaign

Bentley adjunct Feb 2014 Vanguard adDear Bentley Adjuncts:

Last fall, the effort to establish a Bentley Adjunct Faculty Union to improve our pay, benefits, and job security fell short by only two votes. We’d like you to know that the still-growing movement of our fellow adjuncts is launching a new campaign in 2014. The cornerstone of our position is the fair and ethical treatment of Bentley’s adjuncts, who comprise about 40% of this university’s faculty. On that basis, we ask you to consider the facts afresh, to talk with us this semester and to play some active part. We will be working to correct misinformation and connect with even more adjuncts, including those who did not vote at all and those who voted No.

We intend over the coming weeks to lay out clearly why this effort is not only in the interest of all Bentley adjuncts, but of all Bentley faculty, as well as the students we teach and the university itself. We welcome the support and active assistance of all educators on the Bentley campus who agree that all of the highly qualified and educated instructors who teach Bentley’s students should be paid as the professionals that they are, and should receive employment benefits.

Bentley, like many institutions of higher education, has been increasing its use of “contract adjuncts” as de facto employees
for many profitable years, paying low salaries with no benefits or job security, while knowing full well that the need for adjuncts is regular, year-round and ongoing. The ethical imperative is fair treatment for all. This past year, faced with the union-organizing activity, Bentley gave adjuncts an overdue raise that merely brought them closer to where the earlier trend of raises indicated they should be. More importantly, there was no move toward a new policy that would truly improve adjunct conditions.

The impact of inequitable treatment of adjunct faculty has been detailed with growing frequency in many higher education journals and in mainstream news. In fact, a January 2014 report from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce presents what it calls “an alarming snapshot of life for contingent faculty,” finding as well  “a shortchanging of students who pay ever-increasing tuition.” It shows that we are the highest-educated workers in the realm of minimum wage labor. The report also finds no reason why adjuncts are grossly underpaid for the level of skills and experience required to teach at the college level.

It is apparent that there is a major problem throughout the country, the region, and at Bentley with respect to adjunct employment. It is equally apparent that without the shared strength of a union and collective bargaining, there will be no significant changes. This is particularly unfortunate at Bentley, given the university’s stated mission of inculcating business ethics and social responsibility in everything it stands for. Moreover, we believe that a school with a $201 million endowment and over $200 million in annual tuition can afford fair treatment of all of its employees, without passing the costs on to students and their families.

This campaign will show why Bentley must move past the contradiction between its treatment of adjuncts and what it preaches about ethics across its curriculum. If teaching is not the main source of your livelihood, please consider the effect of inadequate compensation and lack of benefits on those adjuncts who dedicate themselves to teaching as a career. In fact, we believe this is a major opportunity for Bentley to take national leadership in applying its own business ideals relative to ethics and social responsibility. And so, we hope that last year’s near success will inspire you to join in standing up for our valuable labor and the integrity of our profession.


Your friends and colleagues,
Concerned Bentley Adjunct Faculty

Lord Andzie-Quainoo (Economics)
Joan Atlas (English and Media Studies)
Lilian Bobea (Sociology)
Roger Danchise (Natural and Applied Sciences)
Jack Dempsey (English and Media Studies)
Thomas Finn (English and Media Studies)
Patricia Glynn (English and Media Studies)
Robert Hannigan (History)
Mary Hartman (Finance)
Curtis Holland (Sociology)
Tom Johnson (History)
Ted Kaplan (Mathematical Sciences)
Robert Keefe (English and Media Studies)
Doug Kierdorf (History)
Barbara Nash (Natural and Applied Sciences)
Alicia Nitecki (English and Media Studies)
Elaine Saunders (Mathematical Sciences)
Clarissa Sawyer (Natural and Applied Sciences)
George Seeley (Global Studies)
Jonathan Speros (Accountancy)
Rebecca Thorndike-Breeze (English and Media Studies)
Kim Vaeth (English and Media Studies)
Fred Wesemann (English and Media Studies)

 

The Invisible Professor

boston globe

The Invisible Professor

On most campuses, adjuncts are an undervalued, invisible population