Resources on Contingent Faculty

[William Leap]

Laura (et al.) this is fabulous news.  There is also (we trust) the 
following round table , to be sponsored by the Committee on Labor 
Relations and AQA, , on this year's program. 

Contingent faculty narratives from queer identified (a broad category, 
that)  faculty graduate students,   students teaching and serving as 
t.a.'s while enrolled in grad programs, motivate this session. Working in 
solidarity to build larger strategies of support and intervention is of 
course ideal. 


Roundtable: Queerness as Vulnerability in Academe 
Organizers:  Karen Brodkin (UCLA), Christa Craven (Wooster), Matt Korn 
(Texas State) and William Leap (American) 
 The 2013 AAA Resolution on Contingent and Part-Time Academic Labor calls 
attention to the particular vulnerabilities facing LGBTQ graduate 
teaching/research assistants, visiting faculty, term and temporary 
faculty, and faculty seeking tenure in the current labor market.  While 
explicit denials of opportunity on the basis of sexuality and/or gender 
expression may be rare, there are academic venues that exclude research 
interests in sexuality from domains of ?real? scholarship and use gender 
conformity to justify hiring/ reappointment and other distributions of 
resources.  We cannot resolve such conditions in this roundtable. But we 
will engage a public discussion of these issues, framed against the Final 
Report    of the AAA Commission on LGBTQ Issues in Anthropology (COLGIA 
1999 ).  This roundtable session brings  queer faculty and graduate 
students together with  labor activists familiar with on-campus 
faculty/student   organizing, and other allies  to consider whether the 
seemingly ?gay-friendly? popular climate extends to queer academics in 
higher education. Opening remarks from several panelists will be followed 
by  comments and discussion from the audience. Questions we will consider 
include:    What are the particular vulnerabilities of LGBTQ grad students 
and visiting or junior faculty?  How do LGBTQ-related vulnerabilities 
intersect with vulnerabilities that have been widely documented concerning 
race, class and gender (see Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of 
Race and Class for Women in Academia)?  Our goals are (1) to consider 
queerness as a site of vulnerability in the anthropological labor market, 
and, (2) to begin developing strategies that will mobilize AAA resources 
on behalf of queer anthropologists in moments of vulnerability. 

Wlm L. Leap
Professor, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington DC 
20016
Co-editor, Journal of Language and Sexuality   
http://www.benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/jls

"It is not very hard to silence us, but that is not because we cannot 
speak."    --  a Bengali villager once remarked to Nobel prize winning 
economist  Amartya Sen  (The Argumentative Indian, Picador Books, 2005: 
xiii) 

"Don't be a drag, just be a queen."  Lady Gaga 




From:   "Miller, Laura" <millerlau at UMSL.EDU>
To:     LINGANTH at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG, 
Date:   05/26/2014 03:55 PM
Subject:        Re: Resources on Contingent Faculty
Sent by:        Linguistic Anthropology Discussion Group 
<LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org>



Dear Colleagues,
Following up on Nate and Judy's notes, there will be a Roundtable session 
sponsored by the Committee on Gender Equity in Anthropology at the 
American Anthropological Association in December. Below is the abstract 
for the session.  We are especially interested in the range of experiences 
within anthropology that the audience and the participants will share. 
best,
Laura


"The Feminization of Contingency: Sex, Race, and Class in the Academy"

While  a concern of the AAUP for many decades, adjunct-ification and its 
effects on higher education have recently taken center stage as a hot 
issue in academia, the media, and even the US Senate. The AAUP (2005) 
estimates that 2/3 of academic employment now occurs off the tenure track. 
Adjunct-ification encompasses a variety of contingent positions including 
adjuncts, lecturers, renewable professors, visiting assistant professors, 
and a host of new terminologies to signal new labor configurations. Even 
though some positions off the tenure track may incorporate better pay and 
conditions, contingency as the new norm signals important problems for 
stability, student-outcomes, academic freedom, and mobility. 
Adjunct-ification also poses troubling concerns for tenure-track faculty 
and the university as a whole. 

Recent research links the rise in contingency with sharpening trends that 
further exclude women, LBGTQ individuals, ethnic/racial minorities, and 
those from working class backgrounds from the tenure track. Women earn 
more than 50% of PhDs, but are 10-15% more likely than men to occupy 
contingent positions (AAUP 2005; Finley 2009). Finley (2009) calls this a 
?glass wall? versus a glass ceiling since many women never gain the 
opportunity to even step on the academic ladder. Additionally, Mary Ann 
Mason (2011) argues that women with children are disproportionately 
represented in contingent roles, whereas men with children are highly 
concentrated in the upper echelons of academia (even more than their 
single and childless counterparts). To achieve a holistic understanding of 
gender equity, Mason (2011) urges scholars to examine now only the career 
gap, but also the gap in desired family formation between men and women. 
Finley (2009) argues that the ?feminization of contingency? over time 
further devalues women?s work and confines them to low pay, low-status 
work, insecurity, and immobility. Moreover, the proportion of 
African-Americans in non-tenure track positions is 50% higher than whites 
(McMillan Cottom 2014). Commentators highlight how adjunct-ification 
generates a two-tier system that exposes vast class differences between 
high status tenure track faculty and their ?second-tier? counterparts. 
This has been particularly striking in the media storms that erupted over 
the death of Margaret Mary Vojtko and over revelations of adjuncts on food 
stamps. Yet there has been less attention to the fact that individuals 
from working  class backgrounds have long been excluded from the tenure 
track and how rising adjunct-ification further entrenches this exclusion. 
However, there has been little discussion, research, and analysis of how 
these trends are unfolding in anthropology, a discipline historically 
committed to combatting sexism, racism, and class inequality. This 
roundtable brings together contingent faculty from different backgrounds 
and experiences (including non-US) cross-disciplinary tenured advocates, 
and union advocates to engage these issues within anthropology, across the 
university context, and in the public sphere. 


________________________________________
From: Linguistic Anthropology Discussion Group 
[LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org] on behalf of Nathaniel Dumas 
[nadumas at UCSC.EDU]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:15 AM
To: LINGANTH at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Resources on Contingent Faculty

Dear Colleagues,



I hope all is well. In light of my last email and some of the responses I
have received offline, I want to emphasize the complexity of the issue of
contingent faculty, particularly in the realm of the heterogeneity of this
category (i.e., non-academic professionals who teach on occasion, retiring
professionals, those aspiring for tenure-track positions, freelancers,
involuntary versus voluntary contingent faculty, full-time versus
part-time). Many times the debates on this issue tend to focus solely on
contracts and benefits, when, in fact, this is not an issue for all
contingent faculty in this category, or at least not to the same extent. 
At
the same time, the exclusive focus on contracts and benefits for those
aspiring towards tenure-track positions also erases the other important
aspects that shape the non-tenure track (NTT) experience. These often
non-discussed aspects (i.e., full access to professional development
resources, participation in governance when appropriate,
systemically-implemented mentorship) are often pointed out in the
literature and can also be implemented with low to no costs.



Yet researchers on NTT issues point out that these other aspects are often
not pursued because of the stereotypes that many, whether explicitly or
implicitly and not informed by empirical research, reproduce about NTT
faculty in daily practices and experiences within the three-tiered faculty
system. These stereotypes are also not trivial in the long-run, for they
play a huge role in hiring decisions for tenure-track positions, as 
pointed
out in an earlier study from 1998 on contingent academic labor and
?accumulated deficit.? (Also, it is difficult to get quality empirical
research on NTT faculty for a variety of reasons, including (a) the fact
that because NTT faculty lack job security and the same kind of academic
freedom, many will be hesitant to speak fully about their experiences with
those in power to renew or cancel their contracts without due process and
(b) many universities make it difficult, if not impossible, to collect
public information for researchers on how many NTT faculty are present on 
a
campus at any given time, in part to avoid damaging PR.) Another common
issue pointed out is that much NTT reform will not be pursued or 
challenged
repeatedly for quite some time because most operate under the idea that 
NTT
issues are really not that central in the workings of university life.
There exists is no incentive to take NTT issues seriously or, after a
policy fix, to monitor them on an ongoing basis as conditions within and
beyond the university change. Many times we implement a policy and then,
over time or when an economic crisis happens, remove it or slowly reduce
its efficacy because it never really became part of the institutional and
department cultures, but something to be tolerated temporarily.



I?m glad we are having this discussion on the LINGANTH listserv, as this
will become a major issue of mentoring for many rising linguistic
anthropologists seeking to continue their work in this new academic market
in varying capacities. I also hope this will become a central part of the
SLA?s initiatives for mentoring scholars within the three-tier faculty
system.



Have a great holiday weekend!



Best,

Nate


On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Nathaniel Dumas <nadumas at ucsc.edu> wrote:

> I hear you Judy. Are you familiar with the other policies, practices, 
and
> values that other universities are taking towards NTT faculty? Also, 
have
> you read up on the recent research on NTT faculty conducted also by NTT
> faculty alongside TT faculty? (For instance, this is a feature of the 
Kezar
> volume). The new things coming up in the research is that, when it comes 
to
> NTT faculty, while contracts and benefits are important, there are other
> issues to consider in the process (e.g., fairness and equity in the 
hiring
> process, participation in department governance, full professional
> development and access to development for all NTT hires). However, these
> other issues often get erased or downplayed but play equally important
> roles in the achieving of the mission statement of universities and
> departments, and many times NTT faculty are afraid to speak up on these
> issues because they often still lack job security and cannot exercise
> academic freedom in the same way.
>
> Hope you're having a great weekend!
>
> Best,
> Nate
>
>
> On Sunday, May 25, 2014, Judy Pine <Judy.Pine at wwu.edu> wrote:
>
>> My university seems to be fighting a rear guard action, holding firm to 
a
>> minimal number of NTT and a majority of T/TT positions while also 
covering
>> our NTT in our union contract and providing benefits, etc in a very
>> generous fashion relative to other institutions.  I hate the defeatist 
tone
>> of moving to the new normal, and would love to see more universities
>> joining western Washington university in pushing back against the
>> dismantling of the professoriate.
>>
>> Can we please include something like that in our own response?
>>
>> Judy Pine
>>
>> Sent using OWA for iPad
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Linguistic Anthropology Discussion Group <
>> LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Nathaniel Dumas <
>> nadumas at UCSC.EDU>
>> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 6:08:24 PM
>> To: LINGANTH at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>> Subject: Resources on Contingent Faculty
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope all is well. In the spirit of the recent AAA resolution on
>> contingent faculty issues, I wanted to pass on two relatively new
>> resources
>> to those of you seeking to expand your knowledge on the contingent 
faculty
>> issue in higher education?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kezar, Adrianna (ed.) 2012. Embracing Non-Tenure Track Faculty: 
Changing
>> Campuses for the New Faculty Majority. New York: Routledge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hoeller, Keith (ed.) 2014. Equality for Contingent Faculty: Overcoming 
the
>> Two-Tier System. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will also be conducting another workshop this year on contingent 
faculty
>> issues at the Conference of Ford Fellows in September and would be 
happy
>> to
>> share my materials upon request. It really is quite a complicated issue
>> and
>> is often quite difficult to discern amidst blogs, anecdotes, brief
>> recurring articles in the Chronicle, and the newly-released 
congressional
>> reports. In this vein, I offer these resources to you all in the spirit 
of
>> generosity, especially since this is the market characterized by 
growing
>> numbers of contingent positions at a rate more rapid than tenure-track
>> positions without the widespread complementary changes in policy that
>> reflect this new trend.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nathaniel Dumas
>> Research Associate, Department of Anthropology
>> University of Santa Cruz
>> nadumas at ucsc.edu
>>
>
>
> --
> Nathaniel Dumas
> Research Associate, Department of Anthropology
> University of Santa Cruz
> nadumas at ucsc.edu
>
>


--
Nathaniel Dumas
Research Associate, Department of Anthropology
University of Santa Cruz
nadumas at ucsc.edu