AAUP PLU Contingent Faculty Survey Report

Results of the Spring 2011 Contingent Faculty Survey

conducted by

the PLU Chapter of the

American Association of University Professors

Report release date: 29 February 2012

AAUP-PLU Contingent Faculty Survey Report 2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Survey Results

Employment Status 5

Support and Benefits 10

Demographics 14

Quality of Worklife 16

Questions for Visiting Faculty 20

Specific Recommendations Regarding the 2-year Guideline for Visiting Faculty 22

Recommendations: A Call to Action 23

Conclusion 26

Resources 27


INTRODUCTION

This report presents results of a survey of PLU’s contingent faculty (defined as part- or full-time non-tenure-track faculty) conducted in spring 2011 by PLU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). A team of PLU faculty from across campus collaborated on the survey questions.1 Their work was informed by a national survey launched in fall 2010 by the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW).2 PLU’s survey was conducted on-line via SurveyMonkey.

Both the national and campus surveys gathered information about the following categories: demographics, employment status, support and benefits, and quality of worklife of contingent faculty.

The motivation for this PLU survey arose from an awareness that although AAUP and other national organizations have focused increasing attention in recent years on contingent faculty issues, we knew very little about our own contingent colleagues, including basic statistical information, details of their workload at PLU and beyond, and the particular challenges they face on our campus.

This dearth of information means, to cite just one example, that although AAUP has long recommended (beginning in 1980 and reiterated in 1993), “that no more than 15 percent of the total instruction within an institution, and no more than 25 percent of the total instruction within any department, should be provided by faculty with non-tenure-track appointments,” we have been unable to determine how our staffing compares to this standard.3 Information from the survey and support from the Office of the Provost and the Faculty Affairs Committee will allow our campus community to make the most meaningful use of this and other professional guidelines. Our desire is that the results of this survey will encourage the administration and campus leaders to better acknowledge and support our contingent colleagues. We also hope that it will empower individual faculty to seek support and raise concerns without fear of retribution.

The AAUP Statement on “Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession” “urge[s] an integration of principles of academic freedom and due process in the work of all faculty, and recommend[s] inclusion of all faculty in the academic work of the institution.”4 We believe that this statement and AAUP’s more specific guidelines regarding staffing and other concerns are wholly in line with PLU’s own mission to provide an environment in which students can be educated thoughtfully and with an ability to care for other people and their communities.

1 PLU Survey Team members: Rosalind Billharz, Kirsten Christensen, Amanda Feller, Maria Ferrer-Lightner, Jane Harty, Brenda Ihssen, Alison Mandaville, Dan Peterson, Dana Rush, Mindy Schaffner, Jennifer Smith, Troy Storfjell, Arthur Strum, Claire Todd. 2 The CAW survey was taken by over 25,000 faculty nationwide. Results will be available in spring 2012. See www.academicworkforce.org. 3 “Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession.” AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 10th ed. Washington, D.C.: AAUP, 2006: 106. Also on-line: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/conting-stmt.htm 4 Ibid 107.


PLU’s contingent faculty is comprised of full-time sabbatical replacements, long-term, full-time visitors, long-term, part-time instructors, lecturers and senior lecturers, professional and clinical mentors, and a range of other faculty categories. For a variety of personal and professional reasons, some prefer to be contingent rather than on the tenure-track. Many others, however, would prefer to have the protection and stability offered by tenure. Most feel a genuine sense of vocation to the academic enterprise.

There is sometimes an attitude in the academy that an institution does contingent faculty a favor by hiring them and that the institution thus owes them little more than the job itself. This attitude is deeply flawed, for the academy would literally implode without the contributions of its contingent faculty. At PLU, almost exactly half of our faculty are not on the tenure track, with some departments ranging up to 70%. Nationwide the statistics are even more alarming – ca. 70% of ALL appointments are now contingent, with only 30% tenured or tenure-eligible. Shifting the balance toward tenure and thus toward personal and institutional stability and security is imperative. As we work toward that end, knowing who our contingent colleagues are, what they contribute and how they can best be supported must be our goals. We offer the results of this survey in that spirit.

Report co-authors Kirsten M. Christensen, Department of Languages and Literatures Jane Harty, Department of Music


SURVEY RESULTS

PLU’s faculty universe in spring 2011, the semester in which the survey was conducted, included

• 368 total faculty. Of those o 193 were tenured or tenure-eligible o 175 were contingent. Of those

144 were part-time 31 were full-time.

70 surveys were filled out, with 62 fully completed, the latter number representing 35% of the total contingent faculty that semester.

An analysis of responses to the survey follows.

I. Employment Status

This section concerned various aspects of respondents’ employment. Campus Representation Respondents were employed in the following campus units: Division of Humanities 25.5% 14 Division of Natural Sciences 20.0% 11 Division of Social Sciences 3.6% 2 School of the Arts and Communication 40.0% 22 School of Business 1.8% 1 School of Education and Movement Studies 5.5% 3 School of Nursing 7.3% 4

This question asked respondents to identify the division or school with which they were affiliated, yet only 69% were willing to do so. The following question gave respondents the option of specifying their department, and only 41% were willing to do so.

Although participants were assured that their responses would be kept confidential, the lack of willingness to identify a department, and for 31% even a division or school, suggests a pervasive culture of distrust.

Part- versus full-time employment; Employment beyond PLU

39.7% of respondents were employed full-time at PLU; 60.3% part-time.


Those employed beyond PLU indicated the following breakdown:

employed part time at one institution 40.4% 23 employed part time at multiple institutions 10.5% 6 employed full time (off the tenure track) at one

institution 33.3% 19 employed full time (off the tenure track) at one

institution and part time at another 7.0% 4 Other (please describe) 8.8% 5

• Responses in the “other” category included employment at other institutions of higher education, K-12 schools, non-profits, and self-employment.

• Of those teaching at more than one institution of higher education, 14.3% taught at two and 1.8% at three institutions.

Teaching Load

How many classes/sections for credit are you teaching at PLU in spring 2011? (Please count multiple sections of the same course separately.) # of classes Response Percent Response Count

1 20.7% 12 2 24.1% 14 3 24.1% 14 4 12.1% 7 5 6.9% 4 6 1.7% 1 7 1.7% 1 8 1.7% 1 9 0.0% 0 10 6.9% 4 Other 17

Besides the total number of classes/sections taught (above), respondents were also asked to identify the number of each type of for-credit courses they taught at PLU in spring 2011, with multiple sections of the same course counted separately. They indicated teaching predominantly lower-division undergraduate courses (57%), with 43% of the courses upper division or graduate level.

Comments in the “Other” sections for both of these questions describe a wide range of teaching-related assignments, including independent studies, incompletes, on-line, course-related consulting, professional development courses, private music lessons, and clinical, lab and other


zero-credit classes. These answers reveal that the “for credit” distinction, and thus the statistics above do not adequately reflect the diverse instructional workload of contingent faculty.

• Flexible teachers. 68.5% of respondents indicated that all of the classes they teach are in the field they consider to be their academic specialty. 22.7% of respondents taught fewer than half of their courses in their field of specialization and over 9% indicated that none of their courses were in their field of specialization. These results indicate that what we might term “disciplinary flexibility” is a salient feature of the teaching life of about a third of PLU’s contingent workforce. PLU thus relies on the willingness and ability of these teachers to stretch beyond their subfield of specialization.

• Experienced and devoted teachers. Respondents represent 576+ total years of teaching, 512+ of those at PLU. A range of 1-40 years at PLU was reported, with many of the respondents being long-term affiliates. Over 77% of respondents considered teaching in higher education to be their primary employment. Comments from some of the 22%+ who responded that it was not their primary employment make clear that they wish it could be, but that low pay or lack of more sustainable positions mean that they have had to supplement their teaching with work outside of higher education.

• Teachers who serve outside the classroom. Respondents were asked to identify roles beyond teaching that they filled during spring 2011. These included: five faculty who served as chair, director or coordinator of an academic program, and the following dizzying array of other duties, including some fulfilled prior to the time of the survey: committee member, grant coordinator, academic advisor, capstone advisor, lab coordinator, concert series director, textbook search coordinator, logistical assistance for on-campus interviews, curriculum development and publications advisor. Only two respondents indicated having no service responsibilities.

PLU thus depends not only on the teaching work of its large contingent workforce, but also on its diverse service contributions.

Interest in full-time, tenure-track employment Respondents were asked whether they were currently seeking or had previously sought full-time, tenure-track employment at PLU or elsewhere.

• In the 2010-11 academic year, 19.6% percent of respondents said they were seeking such employment.

• In the 2-10 years prior to the 2010-11 academic year, 42.6% had done so.

38.2% of respondents said they would apply for a tenure-track position at PLU if the opportunity were to arise; 25.5% answered “no,” and 36.3% answered “not sure.” Comments indicated a range of emotions about the prospect:

• “In the future…I would love to work full-time at PLU.” • “Absolutely….”


• “Given that PLU is apparently moving toward a profit-model, and given that they have gradually stripped away visiting assistant professors of their status to save money, I don’t see this happening at PLU anytime soon. … I only see this [reliance on contingent faculty] becoming worse at PLU and many other schools.”

Those who answered “no” or “not sure” to the question of applying for a tenure-track position at PLU gave the following reasons. (Note that more than one response was possible.)

Non-tenure-track employment suits my current employment needs. 51.6% 16 Don’t want pressure of tenure track. 32.3% 10 Not confident that I would be competitive for a tenure-track position. 32.3% 10 Don’t plan to stay in this geographic area long-term. 6.5% 2 Other (please describe) 32.3% 10

Respondents were also asked whether they would apply for a tenure-track position at an institution other than PLU if the opportunity arose.

• The “yes” and “no” options garnered the same number of responses (27.3%), while 45.5% answered “not sure.” Over half of respondents cited “prefer to stay at PLU” as a reason not to apply elsewhere. This was by far the most common response, suggesting a genuine and underappreciated loyalty among our contingent to this institution, its students and mission.

• Reasons provided by those who selected “other” as their response both for the PLU and the beyond-PLU questions included: lack of terminal degree in field, concerns about possible age discrimination or health challenges, and recognition that PLU’s tenure-track salary would be lower than the respondent’s current income from simultaneous contingent employment at PLU and work elsewhere.

Part- versus full-time Status

Has your employment status ever changed since you’ve been at PLU?

Never Once 2-5 times more than 5 times

From full time to part time 68.9% 24.4% 6.7% 0% From part time to full time 67.4% 21.7% 10.9% 0%

The seemingly straightforward answers to this question belie a complicated reality of (sometimes frequently) changing incomes and responsibilities for the one-third of respondents whose status has changed at least once, and up to five times during their tenure at PLU. Although the question was not asked on the survey, anecdotal input suggests that notification of changes in status for contingent faculty is often very short, thus demanding of the contingent faculty member flexibility and efficiency of preparation not asked of tenure-track faculty, whose courses are


generally plotted out with substantial foresight and are often closely related to their research specialties.

Duration of employment at PLU

For 72.7% of respondents, their total years of employment at PLU have been continuous, indicating a contingent workforce with long institutional memory and suggesting deep connections to programs and students. For those whose service was interrupted (50%+ employee-instigated), breaks were generally short-term (one semester to a couple of years), although others reported breaks in employment as long as 19 years.

One respondent also highlighted a challenge not necessarily reflected in the labels part- and full-time: “The criteria used to determine employment as ‘full-time’ or ‘part-time’ seems deeply flawed. I taught more students in academic year 2010-2011 than in the previous year, yet took a drop in % FTE and a drop in pay. I believe more emphasis should be placed on whether a person is teaching a class or not...and not how many are enrolled in the class. Headcounts are somewhat insignificant when it comes to planning lectures, etc.”


II. Support and Benefits

This section concerned salary, other sources of income, benefits, university resources available to contingent faculty, and faculty privileges and responsibilities.

Salary • The wide range for overall annual salary from PLU reflected both part-time (PT) and full-

time (FT) contingent pay, with all salaries over $30,000 going to FT faculty. Of those FT salaries, all but five respondents were Visiting Faculty.

• 46% of respondents were PT, making less than $20,000.

Salary Ranges

$0-5,000 13.0% 7 $5,001-10,000 16.7% 9 $10,001-20,000 16.7% 9 $20,001-30,000 11.1% 6 $30,001-40,000 7.4% 4 $40,001-50,000 27.8% 15 $50,001-60,000 3.7% 2 over $60,000 3.7% 2

• Contact hours with students are pending from the Provost’s Office for both PT and FT affiliate faculty. From the Demographics section we know that the largest percentage of affiliates (48%) taught 2 or 3 courses.

• Music Department respondents reported credits taught as studio time rather than as number of courses, e.g. 18 credits = 9 hours of instruction/week.

• 74% of respondents did not consider their salary to be a living wage. Individual responses:

“This is so far below what I was making before coming to PLU, if I didn’t have another income I would not be able to work at PLU.”

“PLU pays almost exactly the same that I was paid fifteen years ago at UW Seattle as a teaching assistant.”

Other sources of income

Income from sources other than PLU salary

income from a teaching position at another institution 26.2% 11 income from a job outside of higher education 40.5% 17 income from spouse or partner 66.7% 28 support from other family or friends 4.8% 2 savings 21.4% 9 loans or credit cards 7.1% 3 public assistance 0.0% 0 Other (please describe) 26.2% 11


• Responses in the “other” category ranged from retirement income and alimony, to private instruction and non-teaching-related self-employment.

• These responses reflect the reality that many of our contingent faculty require other support in order to continue to teach at PLU. Worded another way, the work that many of our contingent colleagues do here at PLU is effectively subsidized by their families, their savings, and their other jobs.

Benefits

• Only 51% of affiliate faculty respondents received health insurance and retirement benefits.

Individual response: “That’s the reason [receiving benefits] to put up with the poor pay.”

• 40% reported not being eligible for benefits. • Regarding eligibility for unemployment compensation through PLU when not teaching,

94% reported that they were either not eligible or they did not know if they were eligible. Individual response: “I looked into this and was told (by human resources) I could not do this

[apply for unemployment] because I have the ‘promise of employment.’ But that ‘promise’ does not help me get food in June, July and August.”

University resources available to contingent faculty

Respondents reported the following access to a variety of physical resources on campus:

Private office space 50.9% 27 Shared office space 43.4% 23 Satisfactory heating/cooling/ventilation in office 62.3% 33 Satisfactory/sufficient furnishings in office 69.8% 37 Single-user computer access in office 64.2% 34 Multi-user (shared) computer access in office 11.3% 6 Telephone access in office 83.0% 44 Private mailbox 90.6% 48 Shared mailbox 3.8% 2 Parking decal 96.2% 51 Departmentally supported photocopying 94.3% 50 Clerical assistance 49.1% 26 Library privileges 90.6% 48

• Only 50.9% of affiliate faculty respondents have private office space. • Only 62.3% reported that their offices had satisfactory heat or ventilation, leaving just

under 38% with inadequate heat or ventilation.


• Nearly 25% had neither single- nor multiple-user computer access in their office. Individual responses:

“Shared office space is inadequate on many different levels. It is heated by space heaters which I purchased. Students are embarrassed to come in the building because it is so shabby, and it cannot be used to recruit potential incoming students.”

“The ventilation is bad; temp highly variable/uncontrolled. This issue has been ongoing since 1998 and has remained unresolved.”

“Phone service is limited to outgoing calls and voice mail. There is no way to call in.” Faculty privileges and responsibilities

These responses indicate the kinds of privileges and responsibilities given to or expected of contingent faculty:

Yes No Don't know

Participation in departmental meetings 32 (60%) 19 2 Office hours outside of class 41 (77%) 11 1 Payment if course is cancelled before or after semester begins 0 ( 0%) 27 25

Support for travel to professional meetings 24 (44%) 18 12 Access to PLU-sponsored professional development opportunities 38 (70%) 7 9

Paid work outside the course structure (e.g. tutoring, program development, retreats with students)

6 (11%) 37 11

Ability to submit external research grant proposals with institutional support 12 (23%) 18 23

Priority consideration for tenure-track openings 0 ( 0%) 35 17 Regular evaluation 29 (55%) 14 10 Regular salary increases 9 (17%) 33 10 Tuition assistance/remission for self 16 (30%) 13 24 Tuition assistance/remission for dependents 16 (30%) 15 22 Job security for seniority or time in position 2 ( 4%) 31 19

Respondents reported a wide range of privileges and responsibilities, dependent in part on PT/FT status.

• 60% indicated participation in departmental meetings. • An encouraging 70% of respondents reported having access to PLU-sponsored

professional development activities. • Just over half of respondents said they were regularly evaluated.


• No faculty reported receiving payment for any work done to prepare a course that is later cancelled; nearly half of respondents didn’t know whether they could expect such payment.

• No respondents reported priority consideration for tenure-track openings. • Only 17% indicated receiving regular salary increases. • Only 4% reported job security for seniority or time in their position.

Individual response:

“I am frustrated by the freeze of promotions on campus. I have been in line for a promotion to senior lecturer since my 2nd year at PLU. 3 years later, no promotion.”

The fact that at least one respondent answered “don’t know” for every question (in most cases far more) makes clear that many contingent faculty lack basic information about the expectations and requirements of their positions.


III. Demographics

What is your age? 20-25 years old 0.0% 0 26-30 3.8% 2 31-35 7.7% 4 36-40 15.4% 8 41-45 9.6% 5 45-50 13.5% 7 51-55 11.5% 6 56-60 13.5% 7 61-65 15.4% 8 66-70 3.8% 2 over 70 5.8% 3

Exactly 50% of respondents were over the age of 50, an unsurprising statistic in light of

the significant years of experience reported in section I. 66% of respondents were women; 34% were men, statistics that reflect a long-recognized

feminizing of the contingent labor force in the U.S. 4% self-identified as Hispanic or Latin; 96% as non-Hispanic or non-Latin. Using categories taken from the 2010 U.S. Census, 1.9% of respondents identified as

Chinese; 98.1% as white, a statistic that diverges from the national trend of contingent labor falling heavily to faculty of color.

Answers to the question “What is your highest educational attainment?” were as follows:

High School Diploma 0.0% 0 Some college credit, but no degree 1.9% 1 Associate's Degree 0.0% 0 B.A. or B.S. 5.7% 3 M.A. or M.S. 39.6% 21 MFA 3.8% 2 PhD 32.1% 17 Ed.D 0.0% 0 J.D. 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 17.0% 9

Responses in the “other” category included discipline-specific degrees not listed (an oversight in the survey design), such as DMA (Doctor of Musical Arts), M.Mus and BFA, as well as substantial post-doctoral training.

Respondents answered the question “Is the educational level or degree you selected in the previous question considered the terminal degree in the PLU department or discipline in which you currently teach?” as follows:


Yes 42.3% No 40.4% Not sure 17.3% The relatively high number of ‘not sure’ responses may be due to the somewhat ambiguous wording of the question. Intended was “Is your current education level the highest possible in the discipline in which you teach?” not “Is your current education level the highest offered by the department in which you teach.” Those who responded yes or no did so in nearly equal numbers. Since the majority of respondents teach predominantly lower-division courses, for which a discipline’s terminal degree is often not required, it should not be surprising that 40.4% of respondents reported not having the terminal degree in their field. The 42.3% who answered “yes,” however, indicate that PLU students are being taught by a significant number of contingent faculty with education equaling that of their tenure-track piers.


IV. Quality of Worklife

This section concerned communication with unit heads on job expectations, benefits and rights, possibilities for advancement, and general well-being. It also asked about integration into the academic unit and perception of respect from both unit heads and colleagues. The final two questions requested written responses on both the benefits and challenges of working as an contingent faculty member at PLU. Communication with unit heads

Respondents were asked: “In your current PLU position, either this year or in the past, has your unit head (chair, dean, program head) initiated conversations on the following topics? (Select both “at hire” and “since hire” if both pertain to a given topic.) Answer Options At hire Since hire Never

duration of position 24 21 15 (28%) expectations/requirements for teaching 29 19 15 (29%) expectations/requirements for service 15 16 27 (52%) expectations/requirements for scholarship 9 13 35 (67%) possibilities for your or another position becoming tenure-track 4 13 38 (73%)

possibility that you might be considered for a tenure-track opening 5 10 40 (77%)

ways to make yourself competitive for a possible or actual tenure-track opening 4 6 43 (83%)

benefits and support available to you 20 14 25 (49%) your rights as an affiliate faculty member 8 10 38 (72%) invitations to regular department meetings 24 28 12 (12%) invitations to unofficial department or faculty gatherings 22 33 7 (13%)

inquiries about classes you would like to teach 21 27 16 (30%) distribution of advanced students or courses among tenure-track and affiliate faculty 8 15 32 (64%)

invitations to collaborate on departmental or professional projects 11 30 20 (38%)

your general well-being in the position 18 32 13 (25%)

• The questions concerning the possibility of tenure show very high percentages that unit heads never initiated that topic with affiliate faculty.

• 49% of faculty responded that there was never any conversation with their unit head concerning benefits.

• 72% had never had a conversation with their unit head about their rights as an affiliate faculty member.

• Although some affiliates had been invited to participate in collaborative projects in their unit, 38% had never been asked.


These responses show that large numbers of affiliate faculty have never had communication with their unit heads about fundamental employment and advancement issues.

Integration into the academic unit and respect from unit heads and colleagues

Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the highest, how well integrated they felt in the life of their unit.

• A full 31% of respondents ranked their sense of integration at 5 or less. 6% registered a 1 or 2; only 19% registered a 10.

• Regarding respect from unit heads, 20% of respondents rated their perception at 5 or less. 4% registered a 1 or 2; 29% registered a 10.

• 10% of respondents ranked respect from colleagues in their unit at 5 or less. 2% registered a 1 or 2; 23% registered a 10.

These numbers suggest that almost a third of affiliate faculty do not feel integrated into their unit.

Over 20% of respondents rated their perception of respect from unit heads and colleagues as a 10 (highest possible). This is encouraging but not nearly high enough. Indeed, 20% of the responses regarding respect from unit heads and 10% of those regarding respect from colleagues show a small but significant group of faculty who feel quite alienated.

Benefits of working as an affiliate faculty member

Respondents were asked what they considered to be the greatest benefit of working as an affiliate faculty member at PLU. The following are selected responses:

• “It’s a job doing what I love.” • “Being able to work in my field with excellent students.” • “The students. They are an incredible group of people who, on the whole, seem highly

motivated to come to class and work hard. It is truly a joy to teach at PLU.” • “Time to work closely with students because I’m not required to serve on committees.” • “In my case, participation with an extraordinarily strong faculty in the field.” • “My colleagues are some of the best parts of this job.” • “My health insurance.” • “Not having to deal with tenure track hoop jumping.”

Respondents in general expressed a genuine passion and sense of vocation for teaching in their field.


Challenges of working as an affiliate faculty member

Respondents were asked what they considered to be the greatest challenge of working as an affiliate faculty member at PLU. The following are selected responses:

• “Not getting paid enough. Not getting paid for gas. Not having an office to teach in.” • “Extremely low salary. Constantly on the job market which is time-consuming and

stressful.” • “Pay is less than market rate and little to no hope of benefits.” • “The salary doesn’t pay a living wage. I have to work three jobs (two off campus) to

pay my bills.” • “The low salaries have a demoralizing effect on the faculty and are commented upon in

other quarters. • “I am sad at how I never get any merit increases even after years of employment. I

worked in K-12 and you can only be “probationary” for 1-2 years before they have to give you a permanent contract--with regular pay increases. I’d be making at least 20K more had I stayed in K-12.”

• “No job security. An institution that finally doesn’t care about its affiliate faculty and doesn’t do what it can/should to provide better compensation and more employment opportunities.”

• “Lack of job security...always wondering if I will be employed after the current semester.”

• “I always fear that if I speak out too much--with such minimal job security--I could lose my courses.”

• “There does not seem to be a lot of effort given to orienting adjunct faculty to work at PLU. I was just dropped into my job and expected to function. The only “handbook” I have is a departmental folder full of confusing and even out-of-date material… perhaps this is normal for all employees.”

• “Support for faculty seems generally poor at PLU. I have a hard time getting answers or necessary materials for my job.”

• “There are the realities of funding, need, and (unfortunately) politics within the department that seem to spell an end to my time here at PLU. I’ve always known this to be the case - that at some point, this position will dry up - but after five (soon to be six) years of genuine devotion to this university coupled with reaping success (and deep gratification/affirmation) in the classroom, it’s heartbreaking to think that I am, ultimately, a rather expendable entity.”

• “I feel as an affiliate faculty member that I’ve been chewed up and spit out by an institution--like so many other academic institutions--that is moving to a profit/consumerist model of education and saving money wherever it can. As a school coming out of the Lutheran heritage, I think this is a fundamental betrayal of the values of this tradition.”

• “It is hard to understand the continued hiring of contingent faculty to teach the same courses year after year. I am not convinced I have any better shot at a TT position that might come up than outside candidates. Probably less.”

• “Tremendous isolation. My greatest personal challenge is that I truly feel students deserve 100%. It is very, very difficult to do this as an adjunct, because the institution,


by default, simply is unable or unwilling to invest in me. I understand the reasons, but still find the end result a bit demoralizing. I would love the opportunity to plan longer term without frantically trying to rearrange my schedule and select textbooks at the last minute every summer when someone in admin realizes they are short an instructor.”

• “I don’t think that tenure will be forthcoming, and may even go away for all new hires. I would just like some stability. This is death to myself and my family, to constantly be in a state of uncertainty about where my employment will be. This seems particularly crazy, given that my department has a need (they keep hiring not only me, but other full-time visitors and adjuncts) and that I (by the measures of my department - course evaluations, formal evaluations by my chair) do very good work. What more could I do?”

• “Unequal pay for equal work; no collegiality. The faculty ‘caste system’ is very difficult to manage, especially for long-term affiliate faculty. There is no ability to advance within the university, and no possibility of even improving poor working conditions. Students pay the same tuition, whether they are taught by a tenure-track faculty member or an affiliate. The disparity in salary for teaching the same course is enormous. The university has taken advantage of a poor job market for highly trained academics and have hired affiliates who are only able to keep their jobs because of the generous support of spouses and family members. Their work is not evaluated, appreciated, or even noticed. The affiliates are invisible and the reputation of the university is built on their backs.”

Respondents in general expressed a deep sense of sadness over their work life at PLU, in spite of their commitment to teaching. This combination of extremely negative and extremely positive responses, often from the same respondent, is perhaps the most notable characteristic of affiliate faculty at PLU.


V. Questions for Visiting Faculty

This section was designed to solicit input from visiting faculty on a section of the faculty handbook directly relevant to their status. Changes to the handbook (references to “affiliate faculty” replaced by “contingent faculty” and introduction of the category of “resident faculty”) approved by the Faculty Assembly in May 2011 (after the launch of the survey) suggest additional questions that could be asked, but we present the data here as gathered, which suggest ways to improve communication between unit heads and visiting faculty that remain relevant to the amended Faculty Handbook.

The survey only allowed respondents who indicated that they were visiting faculty to complete this section, beginning with this question:

“In the section on ‘Affiliate Faculty,’ the PLU Faculty Handbook states that Visiting Professors (which includes Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Instructors) ‘are appointed and salaried for a specific length of time, usually from one semester to a maximum of two years FTE. Visiting positions are designed to meet temporary needs of the university (for example, sabbatical leave replacements)’ [Faculty Handbook, Section III/D, p. 52, emphasis added]. Are you familiar with this 2-year guideline? [Note: With the May 2011 revisions, this guideline is now found on page 33 under Section 2biii, “Faculty Ranks and Classifications.”]

42.5% answered ‘yes;’ 57.5% answered ‘no.’

Of those who answered ‘yes’:

35.3% learned of the guideline by reading it in the Faculty Handbook; 17.6% were informed of it at hire by their unit head; 11.8% were informed of it after hire by their unit head; 35.3% were informed of it at or after hire by a colleague other than the unit head.

Answers to the question “What is your understanding of the purpose of the guideline?” varied widely, from those who understood it as a benign signifier of the intended temporary nature of visiting appointments to others who expressed a more cynical view: “To ensure that visiting faculty are not lulled into a sense of false permanence about the

nature of their contract.” “I take it as a hedge against exploitation of non-tenure track personnel, but, based on my

experience, it is clearly administered to the advantage of the university.” “To not retain too many affiliate faculty.” “To avoid having long-term temporary employees.” “That it is the way things are.” Others saw it in somewhat more hopeful, employee-friendly terms:

“[I]t is just a guideline and…can, maybe, guide to something more stable.” “To offer job stability to employee when department can be reasonably certain based on

past years that they will have need of someone for more than one year. My understanding of this guideline is that it may refer to contracts issued, not serve as a limit on a particular visiting person’s continued re-hire—but I could be wrong.”


“to help visitors seek promotion” “Help push faculty into a tenure-track position at PLU or elsewhere.” “To identify a sustained need and then develop a tenure track position if the need

remains after 2 years.” “To force the hand of the university to make it hire folks it keeps longer than 2 years.” “It seems to indicate that PLU is not obligated to continue a visiting faculty contract after

2 years—it should give both the faculty member and PLU cause to renegotiate (perhaps upgrade to tenure track) the terms of a faculty member's employment.”

Others admitted not knowing:

“I do not know what the purpose is, because it has not be enforced, to my knowledge.” “Not sure.”

In response to the question

“Does the two-year suggested limit on visiting positions seem appropriate for your position or others in your unit, given our geographic location, availability of qualified faculty, needs of your unit, etc.?”

50% answered ‘no’ 11.1% answered ‘yes’ 38.9% answered ‘don’t know.’

Comments following this question offered significant insight into the real application of the two-year rule across units. Some gave a sense that two years might not be a sufficient minimum appointment for a visitor:

“[Two years] is barely enough time to get familiar with PLU, its programs and the campus—which is, in my eyes, a condition to teach well (i.e. feel comfortable with one’s surroundings).”

“…A two year rotation of a visiting position would not take into account the recursive nature of the jobs [in my unit].”

“I don’t think the 2-yr limit applies well to the private instructors in [my] dept.” “Two years is not enough time to understand and see the full spectrum of courses that are

offered and how they all fit together.”

Others expressed a sense of frustration that the two-year guideline was routinely ignored or exploited to avoid transition to tenure-track hires.

“There seems to be a long-term need for [an instructor for the classes I teach]. I have taught [them] for 5 years, and there have been others in my same position over many years. That is well over the 2-year guideline.”

“[The two-year guideline] was not observed for several colleagues. It served a period of transition, however, when several (4) FT searches were in process and leaves of absence and sabbaticals required replacements.”


“What didn’t make sense was to be moved from a visiting professor to a clinical visiting professor to get around the issue.”

“Seems as if the market/needs of dept. favors some longer-term contracts if they aren’t going to hire TT for the additional classes they need every year.”

“It does not make any sense after 10 years.” “If the intent was to introduce a tenure-track position where a sustained need is identified

and that intent was realized, then I would have checked ‘yes.’ However, I checked ‘no’ because tenure-track hires are not consistently made.”

“I think it could be used as a university insistence on a revolving door. I do think our dept. has a demonstrated need that has been resolved by keeping full-time visitors for longer than 2 years. I am ambivalent about this rule.”

Specific Recommendations regarding the two-year guideline for visiting faculty The two-year guideline remains in place after the May 2011 changes. The additions of the category of “Resident Faculty” and the clarification of the category of “Clinical Faculty” as one that “usually, though not necessarily, applies to particular academic units as conforming to professional practice” establish a new category of contingent faculty who “may be reappointed for a length of service that exceeds two FTE academic years.”5 Responses to the questions above, in particular regarding how respondents learned of the two-year guideline, suggest that unit heads must take a far more active role in communicating with visiting (and now resident and clinical faculty) regarding the duration of their appointment, a conversation that should ideally take place at hire. The Faculty Handbook does not stipulate what factors will determine whether a candidate would be hired initially as a visiting or resident/clinical faculty member, nor does it stipulate how (or if) a current or future visiting faculty member might transition from visiting to resident or clinical status. If this is, as it appears, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, we urge the Office of the Provost and unit heads to consider the ramifications (both positive and negative) of such an individualized approach, and to strive for employment practices that are not only sustainable and cost-effective in the short-term but also humane and just for the faculty members in question. Ideally, and as we understand it to have been intended, the new category of Resident Faculty will provide a meaningful title change for faculty who have or will serve the institution for many years in positions that, for a variety of reasons, would not be best-served by a tenure-track hire. For these colleagues, the distinction “visiting faculty” is both absurd and insulting. We welcome this change and urge units and administrators to avoid, at all costs, using the new category of Resident Faculty to sidestep tenure-track hires when they would be justified.

5 PLU Faculty Handbook, 7th edition, May 2011, 33.


Recommendations: A Call to Action

The survey reveals a wide range of pressing challenges and problems. We are convinced that addressing them will require campus-wide changes. We therefore recommend that:

• each division or school establish a Task Force on Contingent Faculty Issues, ideally by the end of spring semester 2012, consisting primarily of contingent faculty, with representatives from each unit within the division/school.

• the Office of the Provost oversee a campus-wide Task Force on Contingent Faculty Issues, ideally by fall 2012, made up of representatives from each of the school/division task forces, to insure consistency of practice and appropriate oversight.

• a contingent faculty representative be appointed to the FAC, with full voice and vote. Currently, no standing university committees include contingent faculty representation. This must change. The AAUP has long asserted that: “participation in shared governance requires vigilant support of academic freedom and the protections of due process. In order to protect the right and the responsibility of nontenured as well as tenured faculty to participate freely and effectively in faculty governance, it is incumbent on all faculty to protect the exercise of academic freedom by their colleagues in faculty governance processes.”6

Both these unit-specific and the campus-wide task forces should carefully consider the results and implications of this survey in their work. We recommend particular and urgent attention be paid to the concerns listed below. The solutions to some of these are self-evident; others are complex and will require more consideration. To aid the task forces, we include below established AAUP principles or guidelines when available.

1. Salary Inequity As AAUP has long asserted: “All faculty work should be compensated fairly. Positions that require comparable work, responsibilities, and qualifications should be comparably compensated, taking into account variations by discipline, seniority, and departmental priorities. … [C]ompensation for part-time appointments, including those in which faculty are currently paid on a per-course or per-hour basis, should be the applicable fraction of the compensation (including benefits) for a comparable full-time position. Although the variety of responsibilities and qualifications required of each position may make comparability difficult to determine, it is the responsibility of duly constituted faculty bodies to meet this challenge.”7

In order to achieve pay equity, we recommend that the Office of the Provost and the Faculty Affairs Committee immediately begin work to

determine the applicable fraction of 1.0 FTE compensation (including benefits) that will be used to establish per-course or per-hour pay for part-time contingent faculty.

6 “Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession,” 104. 7 Ibid 104.


allow per-course or per-hour pay for part-time contingent faculty to be raised in relation to tenure-track pay, taking into account years of service to the institution.

determine an appropriate pay scale for full-time contingent faculty, taking into account years of service to the institution.

establish a tenure-track-to-non-tenure-track faculty ratio that matches or approaches the standard set by AAUP (no more than 25% NTT per department, no more than 15% NTT campus-wide). To aid in determining that ideal ratio, the Office of the Provost should immediately (and each semester anew)

• tabulate the teaching contact hours for all faculty and use those numbers to • calculate the existing ratio of TT-to NTT contact hours.

We recognize that achieving pay equity for contingent faculty presents the university with serious financial questions. Redistributing faculty and administrator salaries in the short term could be one avenue toward equal pay for equal work. We urge creativity and flexibility in considering ways to achieve this important goal.

2. Hiring and retention discrepancies

“To protect academic freedom and to ensure the highest quality in…education, colleges and universities need the stability of a tenured faculty. … Where the ideal [of a fully tenured faculty] is not immediately reachable, faculties and administrations should both adopt concrete plans to increase the proportion of positions that are protected by tenure, and in the interim develop and implement practical safeguards for academic freedom for all faculty, and assurances of conscientious peer review and continued employment of well-qualified faculty, in order to maintain the quality of the education offered at the institution. This transitional phase should include at least…: • Part- and full-time contingent faculty should be provided opportunities to move into

tenured positions (part or full time), the requirements for which should be defined, as always, by faculty peers.

• Part-time faculty, after a reasonable opportunity for successive reviews and reappointments, should have assurances of continued employment. …

• Faculty and administrators should exercise great care in recruiting and appointing new faculty, for any position, to ensure that new faculty may have some prospect of eventually achieving tenure.8

“Resting securely on a base of peer review, academic freedom is best guaranteed by tenure and academic due process. We here affirm long-standing Association policy that, with carefully circumscribed exceptions, all full-time appointments are of two kinds: probationary appointments and appointments with continuous tenure.”9 (Emphasis added.)

8 Ibid 104-105. 9 Ibid 104.


3. Lack of or inconsistent input on curricular matters

All faculty members should have the regular opportunity to contribute to discussions on the curriculum they teach, without fear of retribution.

4. Impoverished or non-existent communication between unit heads and faculty on matters fundamental to each position

This issue will be naturally addressed if the regularization of hiring procedures outlined under #2 takes place. In the short term, all unit heads should communicate regularly with all faculty and clarify not only responsibilities and duties, but also benefits and support.

5. Lack of integration with tenure-track colleagues

“The isolation of contingent faculty from opportunities to interact with their tenured or tenure-track colleagues…promotes divisions and distinctions that undermine the collegial nature of the academic community. …These inequities weaken the whole profession and diminish its capacity to serve the public good.”10

6. Insufficient or inconsistent access to adequate resources

All faculty members, regardless of rank or status, should have access to:

• clean, heated, well-lit, well-maintained, easily accessible office space; • a phone line that can be used for both incoming and outgoing calls; • computer, copier, office supplies and clerical support necessary for their

teaching, service and research; • professional development opportunities with direct relevance to their work, both

on and off campus.

10 Ibid 103.


Conclusion

We must begin immediately to improve the worklife of our contingent faculty colleagues. The plight of many of them is severe, and “intersects the interrelated domains of human rights, fair employment, and the future of higher education.”11 Their well-being is a direct reflection of the strength of the university.

We believe that the concept of sustainability, so central to PLU’s mission statement, is an apt and compelling lens through which to view this important work on behalf of our contingent colleagues. We affirm the powerful and timeless statement of the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (1987), from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, that “people are the ultimate resource.”12 We thus urge a response to this report that will resist the depletion and encourage the sustaining of PLU’s faculty of every rank and status. We must model sustainability and equity in the composition and treatment of our faculty if we are to teach those values to our current and future students.

11 Deborah Louis. “Adjuncts: Solutions for a Mistreated Majority.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 June 2009. http://chronicle.com/article/Adjuncts-Solutions-for-a-M/44436/ 12 Our Common Future, Ch. 4, Article 3. http://worldinbalance.net/intagreements/1987-brundtland.php. Access 5 May 2010.


Resources

American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession (2003) http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/conting-stmt.htm

Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (2006) http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/RIR.htm

Looking the Other Way? Accreditation Standards and Part-Time Faculty (2008) http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/accredpt.htm On the Brink: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession (2009) http://media.timesfreepress.com/docs/2009/06/zreport0629.pdf Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW) Research and Reports http://www.academicworkforce.org/Research_reports.html

A listing of statements from a variety of professional organizations across the disciplines on contingent faculty issues, including the gendering of the contingent workforce.

Part-Time Faculty in Higher Education: An Annotated Bibliography http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=sociology_fac

A 25-year compilation of research on part-time faculty concerns, including an extended introduction on the state of research on and advocacy for part-time faculty.

New Faculty Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity (NFM) http://www.newfacultymajority.info/national/links/38-online-resources-of-particular-interest

An extensive listing of publications in both the academic and popular press on contingent faculty issues.

Modern Language Association (MLA) Academic Workforce Advocacy Kit http://www.mla.org/advocacy_kit

A set of reports and guidelines on faculty workload and staffing norms developed by the MLA since the 1990s, many of which are relevant to all disciplines. These include MLA’s “Statement on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Members” (2003), which provides concrete guidelines for support of contingent faculty.