Comments on: Is it really “higher education” without tenured faculty?

By: J. Otto Pohl

J. Otto Pohl — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:19:27 +0000

I don’t pretend to understand anything about American academia. I have never even gotten an interview at a US university. So I guess the feeling is mutual. But, at the University of Ghana there is officially no tenure and we have a strong union and it seems to work okay. Whereas from what I read on the internet US higher education is not okay.

By: truffula

truffula — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:08:55 +0000

“Strong union” is increasingly a joke in the USofA. Union membership is at its lowest since 1936.

The roles of unions and tenure are different; both are important. Tenure is what protected me when I stood with female students and against a predator who taught popular, revenue-generating classes. The union is what ensured the accused worker had a fair hearing.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:09:40 +0000

J. Otto: Well, if the fundamental objective is to get “paid more for less work,” &c., you would have to explain how at my shop a few years ago (X-teen different plants in one statewide system with a single faculty union and CBA across the whole–but where the standard class “hour” was Y-minutes longer at one of those campuses than at the others) when the administration wanted to shorten the class “hour” at the outlier campus with no reduction in pay, the faculty went nuts. Some disciplines insisted that the world as we know it would end if those ten minutes were chopped off. Other scholarly tribes said, pleeeeaaasse, really, etc. Still other chiefdoms, including mine, split down the middle, so our stewards voted both ways. It took years of secret polling, union rep meetings, back-channel talks, for the admin. to get its “win”: less hours for the same pay. This is where I say (among other examples) the collective bargaining model and its culture can map awkwardly onto the guild system of academic workflow.

And then you have the curious rhetorical distinction we sometimes make between “work” and “my own work.” What trade union would let a member use a key to sneak back into the plant in the wee hours to whip up an extra batch of steel–which we sometimes genteely enough denominate “my next book…” Prof. Stakhanov would soon enough have a wheel come off the car coming out of the parking lot, and not make it to the book tour.

By: J. Otto Pohl

J. Otto Pohl — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:14:28 +0000

Indyanna you make it sound like being a lecturer is a feudal title rather than a job with a collectively bargained salary performed by workers. I used to work as a barrist before I became an academic and the basic model of how workers interact with their employer is not fundamentally different for any waged or salaried job. This is a much better gig than serving coffee in part because I have a better boss and in part because I have a strong union as well as being something I like more. But, there is no difference in how the faculty union here and the staff union work with regards to administration. We are all workers and our fundamental interests are to get paid more for less work and receive better benefits. This is often at odds with the administration and despite being a public institution the role of unions here is not any different really from UAW versus GM or Ford. If there is a problem of interface I suggest you get rid of tenure. We don’t have it in Ghana. Instead after your first one year contract if you are a foreigner you get a long term contract. Normally it is six years, but mine is five and a half because I came in January. If you are Ghanaian you start out with six years. After you pass probation on the second year of the long term contract then all future contracts are basically automatically renewable until age 60. That is a lot better than adjuncting and it applies to all faculty.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:00:54 +0000

Well, we have both tenure and an (intermittently, over time) strong union, and the keystone and often the problem is the ambiguous interface between the two. Like kings of old, faculties have two or more bodies, and not every issue affecting the interest of either individuals or sub-groups are amenable or even relevant to collective bargaining approaches. Too complicated to elaborate now, but some governance issues impose roles and responsibilities on the faculty of an institution that may be at odds–or legitimately divide the interests of its parts–with the imperatives of “solidarity forever.” Faculties may be charged with making decisions in spheres that may conflict with or at least not coincide with the material best interests of their members. I wouldn’t under any circumstances do without the union, but mapping its role onto the complex geography of academic terrain is a delicate issue.

By: J. Otto Pohl

J. Otto Pohl — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:30:32 +0000

Long term contracts with a strong union seems like a better deal than tenure to me. That is the system we have here. In fact if improving conditions for all faculty is the goal then investing in a powerful union is a better way to go than tenure and many countries outside the US have done just that. Higher education in the US like health care is particularly dysfunctional and its problems do not translate to everywhere in the world. Although I do see a troubling trend to try and emulate the US system here.

By: truffula

truffula — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:11:02 +0000

tilting red

We recently advertised an assistant professor position about which a full professor in a right-to-work state sent a carefully worded email. The interested party’s dean had made it clear that if ze heard about anybody applying for positions at other universities, those letters of interest would be read as letters of resignation from Red State U.

By: wini

wini — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:53:28 +0000

I have decided that where I live is desireable enough, although not on a coast, that we’ll stay here after I leave academia. For me, frankly, it’s just not worth it. I make too little, I have no hope of substantial raises… ever. There was a famous job offer in my field, 5/5 load, tenure track, in the middle of nowhere for 39K. But, it’s in a union state and I did the math and they will be making more than me after 10 years.

My view of tenure has shifted. I don’t want it, I mean it is very appealing to my personality in a lot of ways. But, the advantages are not worth the costs at my institution. (My flagship, R1 institution with a 2/2 load, etc.) Why would I agree to stay in a situation where I have had a 1% raise in 5 years, have a 2000 tenure raise to look forward in a state where those in power hate what I do. Oh, and I have mentioned the feelings that I’ll never belong, the disrespect in my department for what I do (although not from my immediate colleagues) and the politics.

My friend was explaining to me the other day how his wife has thought about not working anymore, but giving up her income would mean no more vacations, a smaller house, etc. My reply, which surprised me, was that I don’t make enough to make to stay in this job. My time and happiness is worth more to me than what I make. And, more importantly, how I’d feel making this in 10 years time.

So, no, I don’t think tenure will be enough in the long term. And, I suspect that the people in charge are making it so by offering so little and asking so much.

By: Tony Grafton

Tony Grafton — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:47:43 +0000

As to Historiann’s last point: did anyone else see the piece in the Times about the new Cornell tech school that will be in NYC? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/nyregion/cornell-nyc-tech-will-foster-commerce-amid-education.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
That’s the future, I suspect—except most places won’t have people willing to register even the fairly mild reservations noted by the Cornell folks who were quoted.

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:30:02 +0000

When I left my last job – in one of those regions that might, in the long run, struggle to draw from the coasts if tenure were abolished – we were just starting to think about post-tenure review as a way to stave off the inevitable. The state tilts red. The past Gov, now the head of Purdue, fancies himself a critic of higher ed. The new Gov is a “wipe the slate clean” sort of fellow. They can do a lot of damage. Why not, we collectively thought, get ahead of them, and reveal our productivity after tenure? On our terms. A beggar’s gamble.

In the midst of this discussion, our university president, about whom I was deeply ambivalent, offered this as “proof” that it still paid to have a state public university.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-a-mcrobbie/proof-is-in-public-university_b_1408971.html

I find it interesting, though, that tenure is never mentioned.

The publics are getting hammered from two directions – their supposed drain on the state, and their protection of tenure. The administrative types that I know see this as an extinction level event for these big state institutions. They are just trying to survive.