The Great Shame of America's Colleges

Imagine working for the same institution for thirty years, always earning below minimum wage, never getting any benefits whatsoever, then being let go without notice, without an explanation, without a severance package or a retirement fund or even a $.50 pen from Staples as a souvenir.

You think Wal-Mart employees are exploited?

What if I told you that all over this country, major institutions created and sustained with a mission to pursue the betterment of mankind, colleges and universities that sit on billion dollar endowments are using the current economic crisis to further enrich themselves at the expense of the meager livelihood of long-time faculty? That at the same time as they claim to be the guardians of knowledge and the champions of the arts, they treat their faculty to the legal and financial equivalent of what migrant day laborers earn by standing outside Home Depot?

Freeway Flyers: aka "adjunct professors", aka "teaching professionals." They're the dirty little secret of universities and colleges all around the United States. They're the PhDs with decades of teaching experience, award-winning artists, published authors whose names and reputations draw students to the universities, whose work justifies the $50,000/year tuition, raises the million-dollar donations, earns the sought after rankings in USA Today's annual poll.

In exchange for all that, they are hired only on a part-time basis, made to sign a pledge that they will not work more than twenty hours a week and will not--not now, not ever--have a claim to health or retirement or any other kind of benefits, not even a parking pass. That they are "at will" employees who can be let go at any time, for any reason. Their salaries are so meager, they have to teach two, three, sometimes five classes a semester, at five different universities, just to pay their rent. That's why they're called Freeway Flyers. One writer I knew taught for twenty years at a Southern California college with more money than the GNP of a small country. He was paid so little, he had to supplement his income by working the graveyard shift at airport gift shops. He was the author of one of the biggest literary novels of the 20th century; when he died, his family couldn't afford to bury him. Another guy--a teacher of mine from the days when I was a student of writing--drove four hours each way to teach the same class for twenty-seven years. He made something near $3,000 a semester. He was recently let go because the school could take advantage of the rising unemployment rates to hire a younger person for less than $3,000.

I could go on, but it's too depressing.

Why do these college do this? Because they can. Because they have gotten away with it for decades and are even more likely to do so now that the times are hard. Without a union, each one of these professors is up against a Goliath with a bureaucracy that's reminiscent of a third-world government, in-house attorneys and outside law-firms at its disposal, and two or three other PhDs waiting in line for his job in case he dares complain or ask for more money. Even in cases where they know they're breaking federal labor laws, the colleges use their formidable resources to defeat the rare individual who's foolish enough to complain.

Aren't the heads of these colleges ashamed of the exploitation? Wouldn't they want to do the right thing even if they don't have to?

I've asked many of them these questions, especially recently. One of them was a former peace corps volunteer. Their answers are short and scripted: "Of course we want to do the right thing; but only when possible." His colleague, another dean, lamented openly the fact that out of every professor on their payroll, there was one who could not be let go or forced to work for half her usual salary because that one, unfortunately, had a contract. Not that anyone's unhappy with the professor's work, mind you. They just don't like paying more than they have to.

Palmam qui meruit ferat--Let whoever earns the palm bear it. It's one of those phrases that universities like to carve into the stone facades of their libraries and research facilities. Only it's quite likely that around the colleges you and I all know or have heard of, the person who's bearing the palm isn't really the one who's earned it.

Comments

[HaltCruelty]

I'm glad this article is getting attention from Huffington Post. My heart goes out to all of you adjuncts who struggle in order to make a meaningful contribution to others with your labor. I've been there.
My experiences as an adjunct professor, tenure-track professor, software engineer, and corporate consultant have taught me that the 'sharecropperization" of labor can happen in many fields, not just academics.
For those of you who suggest faculty should move on to greener pastures, my question for you is where are those greener pastures? There is precious little job security in most corporate jobs these days; we all must think of ourselves as temp workers in that sector. Many of the freeway flyers spent their prime earning years in school, spent several more years chasing the elusive permanent job, and now face a greater risk of layoff in the corporate sector based on age.

Instead of searching for greener pastures elsewhere, faculty and other hard-working Americans choose to take a stand on our current ground, by understanding the need to stand together for collective bargaining. In an industrialized society, most workers serve as employees of organizations. The larger organizations have much more political power than individuals. To maintain stability of society, the rights of labor should be protected, especially when that labor is productive. We all need to wonder why salaries of American workers are not keeping up with the tremendous productivity GAINS of American workers. Perhaps it is an imbalance of power.

[ADavey]

During my first week at Northwestern 30 years ago, the Anthropology Department held an orientation meeting for aspiring majors. I was hoping to become an archaeologist.

I can't even paraphrase most of what I heard in college, Yet one comment from that session will stay with me forever.

The gist of it was: Anthropology is a fascinating field. If you major in Anthro, you'll gain a unique perspective on humankind. But don't try it as a career: no jobs.

Well, that worked on me. I didn't pursue a doctorate. Every time I read about a new archaeological discovery, I feel a twinge of regret. It could have been me!

Then I realize no, it probably wouldn't have been me. It's more likely I would be in the academic underclass you've described in your piece.

Academia's other dirty secret is the tenure-track positions at the good schools are available only to the top graduates of the most elite institutions. And all that might do is get you an interview.

So I agree with other posters who say the solution is to reduce the supply of Ph.Ds.

What did I do instead of becoming an archaeologist? I went to law school. Ha!

Remember what I said about the plum jobs in academia? The same is true in law. And since I didn't attend an elite law school and didn't graduate in the top ten percent of my class, I spent my career as a member of the legal underclass.

[Turtleposer]

For those of you getting a graduate degree & hoping to have a regular position at a University, tenured professors at universities will never die. Look at them, they're parachuting out of air planes, climbing Everest & trying to suck your youth away while you slave in those graduate school mills. Don't buy into the nonsense that you should sacrifice your health care, housing and retirement for the "love of teaching." Those professors say "oh, you don't do this for money "and leave for on a grant-paid sabbatical to learn how to teach poor people to knit sweaters in the slums of Monte Carlo.

Think long and hard about plunking loads of $$ on graduate school & don't feel guilt-tripped about caring about your bottom line. Our society cannot afford to have educated people living on welfare. The only way to solve this problem is to NOT go to graduate school. Deprive them of your talent.
Starting unions and making demands when the market is already flooded with Phds doesn't work when they can hire the even younger more gullible people. Grad schools will do anything to get paying bodies to sit in their chairs. The end result is that they get the last of your cash.

[Mildmannered]

sounds like the voice of experience

[tj18bern]

Supply exceeds demand, therefore schools have the ability to hire teachers at competitive (i.e., lower) prices. So long as aspiring teachers keep signing up for Masters programs and applying for positions, academic institutions will continue to compensate as they always have. Isn't this Econ 101?

Instead of scratching its surface, Ms. Nahai should simply tackle the grander root of her frustrations and argue that in her opinion capitalism has no place in academia. Otherwise, wouldn't the members of our free-market society be able to effectively value the worth of their educators' talents? In making the case that teachers know their value to the world better than the world does, Ms. Nahai is implying that the American public is stupid. Another commenter put a finer point on it, stating, "Education is the great shame of this country.... Americans just don't know it." Yikes.

I am an extremely infrequent commenter and only do so in this instance to make two points. First, in case you're ever wondering why the blowhards at Fox News think academics are elitists ... this is why. Second, I would love to have someone from the Huffington Post (Ms. Nahai perhaps) propose a way to actually implement socialized education (K through university). This would be a great article, certainly much more valuable and interesting than simply tossing out a few cherry-picked stats to incite a sympathetic population segment.

Thanks for everyone who commented, it was interesting reading your guys' perspectives.

[benne]

You need to add to your analysis the fact that "middle management" jobs have skyrocketed as teaching jobs have plummeted, including adjunct jobs. We need to cut all the bureaucracy and spend more money on teachers in general. Instead, the universities are seeing themselves as "managers" of faculty of all types. I say we get together with the teacher's unions and call attention to the cost that management has on the quality of our education.

[TopProf]

It's true, and at least in part the result of grand design. What hasn't been noted in other posts is the decreasing proportion of university budgets paid by state legislatures, making the universities more dependent on outside funding. Many legislatures are under the "starve the beast" ideology that tries to diminish the public sphere and return capital to the hands of individuals. Right now we're seeing a new belligerence among neoliberals against unions. Then there is the globalizing and corporatizing effects on universities-- recruiting foreign students, making universities more like businesses, more dependent on grants from legitimate agencies like NSF and NIH but others as well like Department of Defense and a thousand little tentacles of the military-industrial-big pharma complex. High-powered professors who can attract grants are desired because of the overhead that the universities cream off the top. The emphasis on the instruction function is diminished; quality suffers and class size increases, but what do the students do? Nothing. A lot of solidarity among students, underpaid lecturers and tenured professors will be needed as will union action. Tenured professors, particularly in traditional departments like history and sociology that don't get the big grants, will soon be the new proletariate and may feel some kinship. Faculty governance and rights are constantly being eroded. Something has to give.

[Mildmannered]

so what do you see happening?

[Mildmannered]

And so why are tuitions so high?

[gwhizz]

You think the treatment of faculty is bad, you should see how they treat their staff!

[RobinSeattle]

This has been going on for at least 30 years and it is a reason why my dad went back to the machine shop after getting his MA in English and then teaching part time (since that was all he could get) at the junior college level for a couple of years. So it's kind of strange that you would be bringing attention to this just now.

The academic community, and by that I mean professors, have made precious little real noise about it even though is is a rather ancient phenomenon to the point that I first start hearing jokes about homeless Phd's in Berkeley in the early 1990's. So either organize the teaching community against this or deal with it.

[AdjunctMom]

It is also worth noting that the majority of adjuncts (at least in the humanities) are women, and many of them are mothers. For many, adjuncting is their family's second income, but a huge number are also caretakers or single moms who are eligible for public assistance and only adjunct because it is so difficult for women to find work anywhere that allows them to attend to family responsibilities. Some adjunct-moms don't have the time or energy to protest their treatment, or feel that they "shouldn't complain" -- until they discover, as I did, that if circumstances force them to become their family's primary earner, they may well not survive, and we all know what happens when women of a "certain age" go on the job market. This is a national scandal on many, many levels.

[arfarf]

As a full-time lecturer at a well-endowed private university in Southern California, I have it a bit better than "freeway fliers," but since I work on semester by semester contracts, I'm learning the hard way about maternity leave. Even though though it is illegal to discriminate against a worker for being pregnant, no university is going to grant me a semester contract when I'm due to give birth in the middle of the semester and thus eligible, at least in California, for leave that, though unpaid, would require them to pay a substitute. Now that the fall semester is over, I am without a contract, 7 months pregnant, paying $500 a month for COBRA health insurance, and unable to get work for either the spring or summer semesters. I can't complain because I would alienate my bosses and ruin chances for future contracts. Of course women in academia aren't the only ones to face discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood, but it's particularly stinging in an environment that so often touts the virtues of egalitarianism. I'm not choosing to be a working mom. I HAVE to be a working mom and teaching jobs are a hell of a lot more flexible than desk jobs. But there's not a lot of options out there as AdjunctMom rightfully pointed out.

[Shotgun Mary]

This is depressing . For someone who has the dream of holding a doctorate someday this makes me wonder if I should just stick it out in my crappy local government job with mediocre pay and limited benefits.

[gdogs]

Yes you should. Unfortunately these days that piece of paper is just barely worth the price of printing it. Unless it is an MD, and even it won't be worth what it was once healthcare reform is passed.

[RobinBrownfield]

Agreed. I've been adjuncting for 23 years. It was OK as a second income while my husband had his job, but he was laid off in September, and I am now the sole support for our family. I teach an average of 9 courses a semester, have no benefits, and no job security. I've been at one college for 21 years, and I still experience being put "in my place." "As an adjunct, you have no right to question any decision we make about scheduling" is the SERIOUS answer I got from one dean when I asked why I was assigned only one course one semester, and assigned courses that didn't exist in another. I designed three of the college's internet courses, but I have been assigned none of them (or any courses) for the next semester. Two of the courses I designed were supposed to be designed by someone else, but they did virtually no work on them for who knows how many years. I've got more experience than most other faculty members, and the best evaluations in all the departments I work in, and yet, I am an invisible body they can kick around and discard any time they want.

This is just the tip of the iceburg.

[carrieanna]

It's too bad those adjunct professors don't have the time to set up some fundraising events. That would help get the word out about how little the school pays for their services as well as give them some power. Money talks. If they could make special relationships with big donors, they could even wield that power over the school administration, knowing that the $$$ is gone when the profs go.

[toypiano]

Passage of an Employee Free Choice Act could be helpful to adjuncts who want to unionize. For one thing, it would increase penalties for universities that refuse or drag out negotiations. I think part of the problem is that too often adjuncts see this an individual battle, and why not? It's not like there are ample opportunities (or time!) to commiserate or compare notes, much less organize. And for what? A miserable one-sided battle that goes nowhere? Anyway, an EFCA would somewhat level the playing field and make unionizing a more realistic possibility, and I think the next Congress will be taking this up.

[angharad76]

5 classes a semester?!

Speaking as a member of the adjunct gulag, I dream of the time when I can teach only 5 classes a semester. I usually teach around 7. Sometimes up to 9 or 10. With an average of 7 a semester, I can pull in about $20,000.

First of all, why don't we unionize? In many places, we have. When I first started teaching, it was illegal in my state for adjuncts at public universities to legalize. When that law was overturned, we did. I saw my pay rise--from about $12,000 a year to its present rate.

Secondly, why don't I get another job? Because I can't afford to give up a job with at least some kind of health insurance--insurance with a high premium that pays out for only about a third of my medical expenses, not to mention no prescription drug coverage. When I complained to the school, I was told that I was lucky to have any coverage at all. When I complained to the company, I was told that the adjuncts weren't on the group plan with the rest of the college employees but were on a plan that was meant to supplement people with other insurance. I stick it out--because no insurance company will underwrite me and I simply don't have time/energy to look for a job while I keep pace with the 70 hours/week I put in at the ones I work now.

[DAE]

It doesn't have to be like this. I'm an adjunct at a couple of Community Colleges in California. One has a strong union that supports part-timers. I'm lucky enough to be in a department that is very collegial and has a chair who was formerly an adjunct. I have access to good health benefits and pay into the state retirement fund. The other college I teach at has a somewhat lower pay scale, but I still have a combined gross pay over $50,000 per year. That includes teaching both Summer and Winter sessions. I also collect about 6-8 weeks unemployment between semesters. Even so i make about 60% of what a fully vested tenured instructor makes. I'm one of the lucky few who can make a reasonable living as an adjunct, but many can't. It's a pity that so little attention is paid to adjuncts. It wouldn't take much to make their plight more livable.

[Eres]

$50,000 per year in Southern California is equivalent to poverty wages anywhere else in the country. Like most college/university professors, you are getting royally screwed.

[RobinBrownfield]

I helped organize a union in three of the five places I worked. I lost my job in two of them after our contracts were negotiated. At one college, I had been teaching for ten years. The dept. chair took me off the list after I failed to return one phone call while I was away on vacation during a week I wasn't under contract, and for which I wasn't paid. I had already been assigned courses and done all the prep work for them before I left.

The other college just stopped assigning me classes after 14 years. No explanation except a brusque "We have no openings at this time" from the department chair I had known that entire time.

I wanted to organize a union at another, but the NJEA wasn't interested and the AFT would not help me unless I could guarantee them a full executive board. If a union is not willing to help organize the unorganized, and want the job done before they become involved, where does that leave us? We would have no protection from retaliatory actions on the part of the administration without the backing of a union with a legal department; and if I could organize an entire executive board on my own (on a campus that is so diffuse, I rarely see any other faculty), why are they paying professional organizers?

Organizing a union is the answer. I just wish the unions in my state would actually function as unions!