Cary Nelson, president of American Association of University Professors defends the tenure system in the September-October issue of Academe, the organization's magazine. Nelson's essay describes the advantages of tenured faculty over part-time, adjunct, or contingent faculty, arguing persuasively that campuses benefit from the community, shared-governance, and academic freedom that come when faculty members have tenure.
But Nelson misses altogether another key argument that applies particularly to science departments. He makes no mention that universities are much less likely to invest in contingent faculty for laboratories, equipment, meeting attendance and other professional development, research administration, or technology transfer. Those goodies will most likely go to the "lifers".
Adjunct faculty makes a lot of sense on many campuses, particularly in cities where you have people ready, willing, and able to make contributions to the university community. Institutions are under pressure to cut costs and having adjunct faculty teach some classes can help keep staffing costs in line. And having a steady stream of new ideas or perspectives can benefit students and tenured faculty alike.
Must contingent faculty be segregated from their tenured colleagues? Nelson points out how at some campuses, adjunct faculty teach night classes--referring to them half-jokingly as "vampires"--while tenured faculty dominate the campus's daylight hours. Incorporating adjunct faculty into the university community is a challenge each department head and university administrator needs to address. But this is no different a challenge than many executives in other businesses or organizations face, and many do it well.
Building a campus's intellectual portfolio doesn't come cheap, either in money or management skill. Adjunct faculty may teach classes, but if that's all you expect than that's all you will get.
Hat tip: Ric Weibl, AAAS
Comments
Post a comment