Preface

What would you say is the most dangerous trend in higher education today? Where should the union concentrate its efforts?

When we ask this question of AFT's higher education members, a number of concerns are sure to emerge. Inadequate funding and the attack on access. Today's "higher education is a business" management style. The attack on tenure and rise of post-tenure review. The explosion in distance learning. The decline of broad-based liberal arts education.

But no issue, none whatsoever, arouses more concern among our members than the erosion of full-time tenure track faculty positions and their replacement by a growing, and exploited, army of part-time and other non tenure-track faculty. This publication is intended to help affiliates who want to take positive and effective action on both fronts: to curb the loss of full-time jobs on campus and to improve conditions for part-time faculty and other contingent academic workers.

The first section cites data that can be used to confirm the trend away from full-time hiring. The second section explores how to make the case that the trend toward a vanishing professoriate should concern the general public. The third section surveys what higher education unions are doing to reverse job erosion through contractual negotiations and political advocacy. The last section catalogs successful efforts to support the rights of part-time faculty and other non tenure-track workers. We very much hope the material will be helpful as you consider this issue and contemplate action on it.

--Lawrence Gold,
AFT higher education director

--Perry Robinson,
AFT higher education deputy director

Are Permanent, Full-Time Tenured Faculty Really Vanishing?

Yes, these faculty positions are slowly eroding and being replaced by a mix of part-time faculty, full-time/limited-term faculty who are not eligible for tenure, and, at some big "flagship" universities, graduate student instructors. Hovering in the wings are plans to use computers, instructional software and the Internet to reduce the number of instructors of any type through reliance on computer-mediated instruction.

By and large, this is a very silent crisis in the making. Neither elected officials nor higher education administrators have told the public about this deliberate change in hiring policies. In fact, officials go out of their way not to display the numbers because doing so would reveal the change and open it to question. Meanwhile, students and their families know that full-time professors are less available to them, but they are told the cause is faculty laziness and indifference rather than a massive shift in personnel practices. Many faculty members--even, sometimes, their faculty organizations--have been slow to sound the public alarm out of a sense that the trend is immutable or, at least, not reversible by their own efforts.

These are the facts.

-- While the total number of full-time faculty grew marginally and slowly--49 percent between 1970 and 1995 (2 percent per year)--the number of part-time faculty has increased dramatically, 266 percent (10.6 percent per year) over the same period. At this rate, part-time faculty will outnumber full-time by the academic year 2001.

-- At least 43 percent of American faculty are now part-time, up from 38 percent in 1987. Only 57 percent of faculty are full-time. In the community colleges, only about 37 percent of faculty are full-time.

-- In 1995, 51 percent of the new full-time faculty appointed did not receive a tenure-eligible position, meaning they became short-term, year-to-year instructors. Newly appointed full-time faculty in 1995 totaled 3,772 fewer than in 1993, an 11 percent decrease. In comparison with 1989, the decline in new hires is even sharper: 10,372 fewer new appointments were made in 1996--a 25 percent difference.

-- The proportion of full-time faculty on term contracts grew from 19 percent in 1975 to 28 percent in 1995. During this time, the number of full-time instructors on the tenure track decreased by 12 percent.

American Demographics reports a 30 percent drop in new faculty appointments between 1991-95. According to the National Research Council, in 1970, 68 percent of new Ph.D.s found a university or college teaching position. But since 1980, the percentage has been around 51 percent, even though enrollment rose 41 percent during that decade and has continued to grow, albeit more slowly. In some disciplines, conditions are worse than the average; the Modern Language Association's 1996-97 survey discovered that 33.7 percent of new doctorates found tenure-track positions, down from 45.9 percent in 1993-94.

These declines fly in the face of enrollment trends. Total college student enrollment in the U.S. grew 66 percent from 1970 to 1995, while the number of full-time faculty grew only 49 percent. Enrollment growth is projected to increase from 14 to 18 percent between 1997 and 2007, after five years of slow growth. According to TIAA "Research Dialogues" by Carol Frances, "1998 marks the beginning of an upswing in the numbers of 18 to 24-year-olds that will continue past 2010." Certain states face very sharp enrollment increases. Seven states face projected increases of 31 percent or more in the next 10 years; over the same period, 18 states confront growth between 16 to 30 percent. Nevertheless, the ratio between higher education operating expenditures and family income has been decreasing since 1979.

It is not surprising, then, that in the last comprehensive survey of non-tenure track faculty, 53 percent said they would leave their present job for another institution within three years or for work outside higher education (43 percent). Here is the situation at a number of important campuses.

-- The University of California System of 9 universities --internationally recognized for its greatness--was compelled by diminished state funding to encourage the early retirement of 1,996 tenured faculty between 1990-94. Many were not replaced by tenure-track faculty; instead, part-time and temporary faculty were appointed, and some retirees were "recalled" as part-time faculty. The current instructional staffing structure provides clear evidence of a damaged faculty:

-- 58.2 percent of the instructional staff are graduate students;

-- 20 percent are full-time tenured or on the tenure track;

-- 11.6 percent are part-time instructors;

-- 8.9 percent are nontenure-track instructors or on short-term contracts.

-- The City University of New York System, the premier urban higher education system in the U.S., suffered a 21 percent decline of full-time faculty (1,456) between 1987 and 1997, while total student enrollment increased by 8.4 percent. As in California, the use of voluntary early retirement was the principal method of reducing the number of full-time tenured faculty.

-- At some major research universities, graduate student instructors are doing more and more undergraduate instruction. The bargaining unit of the Graduate Employees Organization/AFT at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor has remained essentially the same size since 1979. However, in the nine-year period from 1987 to 1996, nontenure-track appointments as a percentage of the total faculty increased from 11 percent to 26 percent. The Faculty Senate's Advisory Committee report on "The Changing Nature of the Professoriate" observed that "the rapid growth of the use of nontenure-track faculty raises the question whether we are not witnessing the erosion by attrition of a system whose sudden elimination by fiat would cause howls of protest from the faculty, and should be a matter of concern, not only among faculty, but among all who care about the future of the University, whether they are students, alumni, administrators, regents, legislators, or citizens."

-- At George Mason University, a large state university in Virginia, 230 of 749 full-time faculty are on nontenure-track term contracts. At Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis, the percentage of full-time temporary instructors increased by 17 percent in one year.

-- Full-time faculty in the huge 106-campus California Community College system decreased 8 percent between 1988 and 1997, while enrollment grew 8 percent. Full-time faculty in the Los Angeles Community College District--the state's largest--contracted by 28 percent. Any trend in this system is significant; it announces itself as the "largest system of higher education in the world," with 1.4 million students.

-- Rutgers University lost 240 full-time faculty between 1985 and 1998, 9 percent, although enrollment during the period was described as stable. Between 1974 and 1996, the University of Pittsburgh experienced a decline in the percentage of full-time tenured-track faculty from 21.3 percent to 10.8 percent, accompanied by a shift to nontenure-track full-time--26 percent to 44 percent. By 1996, 53 percent of the university's faculty were not eligible for tenure.

-- At Shoreline Community College in the Seattle area, full-time student equivalent enrollment increased by 43 percent between 1970-71 and 1995-96, while full-time faculty grew by only 4 percent, from 131 to 136. By 1997-98, the full-time complement was down to 129. And at Belleville Area College in Illinois, the full-time faculty decreased by 11 percent during the same 25-year period, while student enrollment grew 96 percent. The ratio of full-time faculty (omitting part-time instructors from the equation) to student FTE soared from 1:24 to 1:59.

The move toward relying on contingent, or temporary instructors, whether they be part-time instructors or adjuncts, nontenure-track full-time faculty or graduate student instructors, or a combination, is clear enough. The questions remaining, then, are, first, does it matter? And if it matters, what, if anything, can and should be done about it?

Does It Matter?

American universities and colleges comprise a world-renowned system of higher education drawing not only official praise, but thousands of foreign students from around the world. Then why should we as educators and unionists--and more importantly, why should college students, boards of trustees, elected officials and the general public--be concerned if the system relies more and more on part-time, year-to-year contract instructors, as well as graduate students? In the absence of persuasive evidence that part-timers are poorer teachers, why be concerned if hiring mainly temporary instructors allows administrators to focus college course offerings on shifting market demands?

AFT believes there are many reasons for concern, many reasons to sound the alarm loudly. And when we are asked why, we can cite a number of commonsense principles about what makes for a good college education, principles based on our training and experience. Principles such as the following:

POINT ONE:

A collection of course curricula, developed by a group of disconnected people who rarely communicate with each other, does not add up to a good education.

A course of study in an academic discipline--and among disciplines, for the institution as a whole--needs to be developed by colleagues knowledgeable about the institution's mission, committed to its success and experienced in working with one another.

The fact is that graduate employee instructors are scheduled to leave their university for other employment in a matter of three to five years. Two-thirds of part-time faculty hold full-time jobs elsewhere. Full-time temporary faculty may well teach at a college or university for several years, but they must always be prepared for a "non-renewal" at the end of the academic year. If you do not have tenure at a college or university, you work on a year-to-year, or semester-to-semester, contract, which may be terminated without cause, reason or even explanation at the end of the term. This scarcely fosters the kind of knowledge and commitment on the part of faculty to maintain a first-class academic program.

POINT TWO:

Faculty should be chosen by and evaluated by academic colleagues who know how to assess other academics based on the quality of their teaching and scholarship.

Formal academic hiring and assessment processes may not always be perfect, but they are bound to be consistently better than the informal, un-evaluated, last-minute process by which so many nontenure-track positions are filled.

POINT THREE:

Accountability must be a hallmark of public higher education, but we do not believe, and we do not think there is a lick of evidence to support, the idea that constant job insecurity promotes better performance.

Workers without job protections are bound to appear more "flexible" to administrators, but it is hard to argue that they do a better job. In fact, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that tenured faculty publish more, serve on more committees and teach more than their nontenured colleagues. Studies have found that tenured faculty work an average of 52 hours a week.

POINT FOUR:

Students learn best from faculty who have the time and knowledge to advise them about their courses and academic goals.

If this essential element of the student-teacher relationship cannot always be achieved by permanent full-time faculty, it is almost impossible for part-time faculty to play this role with any sort of frequency or consistency. By the very nature of the part-time appointment, time is a problem; office space is hard to find, office hours are often unpaid; and institutional involvement is limited.

POINT FIVE:

Classrooms need to be places where students and scholars can challenge the conventional wisdom of any field--art, science, politics or whatever.

This kind of dialogue puts ideas to the test and teaches students to think and defend their ideas. But it is a simple fact that professors cannot be as free to discuss controversial ideas if they know their jobs are on the line. Permanent, full-time tenured faculty have the independence to speak out about controversial matters and to challenge the administration on issues of new curriculum and quality.

In short, professors without tenure do not have academic freedom. Why is academic freedom important to students, their parents, faculty and the nation? A college or university must have the free circulation of thought, theories, concepts and hypotheses if learning and research are to flourish. Robert Hutchins, the famed president of the University of Chicago, had no doubts on the topic: "The impression is that, through some bad old custom or some bad new pressure, professors have acquired a special privilege which they do not need and should not have. On the contrary, academic freedom is indispensable to the central function of the university. The main task of the university is candid and courageous thinking about important issues."

Institutions of higher education are unlike corporations or businesses, where employees and management are focused on profits--where all involved could reasonably be expected to be aligned with a common direction. The academic world must be different. Disagreement, controversy, the clash of scientific judgments--all are necessary in a college or university if students and professors are to succeed.

POINT SIX:

Because of their freedom from reprisal, permanent, full-time tenured professors are in a far better position to hold students to high standards and to grade students without worrying about the potential effect on the professor's employment prospects.

POINT SEVEN:

A corps of permanent, full-time tenured faculty is essential to maintain American leadership in research.

Higher education research in the U.S. leads the world. Research requires sustained periods of study and experimentation. Movement of faculty from one institution to another because of nonrenewed contracts, as well as an annual "free-agent" market in both the known leaders in each field and promising young professor-researchers, would distort and destabilize academic programs that will not succeed on a short-term or annualized basis.

The 1993 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty found that nontenure-track full-time faculty consistently produced less scholarship at all types of higher education institutions--public, private, two-year or four-year. They spent noticeably less time in committee work, which, in part, is devoted to peer review of research, curriculum design and direction of graduate student education. Increased turnover of research faculty would disrupt graduate schools' instruction of graduate students and weaken research programs.

POINT EIGHT:

Institutions with an inordinate number of transient, short-term faculty are diverted from their educational mission by the need to engage in constant searching for new instructors, imposing more work on the continuing faculty and the administrative staff and disrupting academic processes.

Assuring quality in the appointment of new faculty circulating in a national labor market of more than 3,800 colleges and universities obviously becomes more difficult with greater turnover. Would administrators move even more frequently if they too were compelled to accept management positions without a tenured position as a retreat right? Top managers today usually demand tenure when they change institutions and retain it when they move from faculty to administration (despite their recurring accusations that tenure prevents them from removing unfit instructors). With increased transience of faculty, would accreditation need to become an annual exercise?

What Can Be Done To Prevent the Gradual Disappearance of the Professoriate?

Halting the steady erosion of the tenured core of faculty at an institution where it is, in fact, occurring (and it is not happening everywhere) is not an easy task for higher education unions. When a department requests approval to search for a new assistant professor to replace one that has retired or resigned, the administration will almost invariably take the position that such a decision is a management right.

Unless the negotiated contract has focused on the issue in one way or another, the administration's position will prevail. The administration may then opt for either "flexibility"--meaning the appointment of an instructor with a semester or one-year term contract--or "splintering"-- the division of the position into two or three part-time appointments. Both actions are, of course, economically, if not educationally, attractive.

However, a number of faculty organizations have taken action to strengthen the full-time faculty contingent. They have done so through contract negotiation and through legislative action and public advocacy. Here are examples of both kinds of activities.

Negotiating the Size of the Full-Time Faculty

Maintaining a healthy faculty-student ratio

One approach is to negotiate a specific ratio of full-time faculty to students.

Western Michigan University: An early example can be found in a contract that was in effect from 1978-1981 negotiated by the AAUP-affiliated faculty union. That contract required the university to "increase the size of the bargaining unit" if the ratio of full-time-equivalent faculty to full-time-equivalent students "exceeds or is projected to exceed" 19.5 to 1. Article XXIII on "Student/Faculty Ratio" also called for retrenchment of faculty if the ratio fell or was predicted to fall below 17.5 to 1. The management of the university had second thoughts about the clause and it ultimately disappeared from the contract in the course of subsequent negotiations.

Oakland University: A variation of Western Michigan's approach is seen in the Oakland University contract, also negotiated by the AAUP. The agreement requires the university to "maintain a student-faculty ratio for each fiscal year calculated as follows: fiscal year equated students (FYES)=20.7" to full-time equivalent faculty defined in seven provisions. See p. 109-11 of the contract, accessible at http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/vansell/aaupct1.htm.

Article VIII, Layoff and Recall, includes an "Over-Ratio Layoff" similar to the Western Michigan agreement. A second type of retrenchment process, a "Position-Shift Layoff," is an alternative that can be selected by management except that "no full-time faculty member shall cease working due to layoff in any academic unit where part-time persons other than students are doing unit work if the full-time faculty member is qualified, as determined by Oakland, to do that work." (p. 36) The first part of the contract section of the position-shift layoff follows:

49. Position-Shift Layoff. Position-shift layoffs may occur in any academic unit which Oakland has notified of an overstaffing condition, but Oakland shall simultaneously authorize in other academic units an equal number of new full-time positions to be filled with bargaining unit persons, except as noted below, and shall notify the Association of such authorizations. If, when Oakland initiates a position-shift layoff, the total number of FTE faculty is greater than that required by Appendix C [20.7 as calculated] as measured over the four terms immediately preceding the current term, the number of new positions may be up to two fewer than the number of layoffs. (p. 37)

Limiting the Absolute Number and Teaching Load of Part-time Faculty

The most direct approach--the one many of us would undoubtedly take if we could only negotiate with ourselves--is to include a provision in the contract that all new positions will be tenure eligible. In the absence of that luxury, negotiators at a number of institutions succeeded in placing contractual limits on the number of part-time faculty to be hired.

The Cooper Union Federation of Teachers contract, negotiated at a private institution in New York City, approaches the problem from several directions. Article C(3) limits the number and course load of part-time instructors.

Article C(3). Maximum Course Loads for Non-Bargaining Unit Faculty. The administration of the Cooper Union shall limit the number of non-bargaining unit faculty members who teach a maximum of two (2) courses in a fall semester and two (2) courses in a spring semester of the same academic year as indicated below:

1995 Academic Year = 35 non bargaining unit faculty members;
1996 Academic Year = 33 non bargaining unit faculty members;
1997 Academic Year = 30 non bargaining unit faculty members. (p.34)

Article XIV then places some restrictions on class size: "Except for large lectures, The Cooper Union will attempt to limit the size of classes taught by members of the bargaining unit to 30 students and will attempt to provide smaller classes when pedagogic circumstances warrant. ...If the size of a class exceeds the 30-student limit for reasons or circumstances beyond the control of the affected member of the bargaining unit, then The Cooper Union, in consultation with the affected member of the bargaining unit, will make every reasonable effort to alleviate the situation by one of the following means.

1. redistributing the students among another section or other sections; or
2. opening an additional section; or
3. providing the instructor a grading assistant; or
4. providing the instructor released time. (p. 35)

The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties/ APSCUF: The union contract in the 14-campus state system of higher education in Pennsylvania takes a comprehensive approach. It limits the number of faculty and the amount of teaching by full-time temporary, part-time, graduate assistant and teaching associate faculty. The number of temporary part-time faculty "shall not exceed seven (7) percent of the regular full-time and regular part-time faculty members employed at that university as of October 31 of the previous year." Regular part-time faculty, approximately 3 percent of the bargaining unit, have a form of continuing appointment with expectation of renewal and promotions through the ranks and up the salary schedule.

Exceptions are made for replacements for approved leaves of absence, death or late resignation or retirement, failed searches (maximum of two years), and special "workload equivalents" presented by the president of the institution to the union's campus-level meet-and-discuss process.

Graduate assistants may be appointed and assigned to faculty "to assist in research, instruction and other professional duties," but may not "instruct lectures or laboratories unless the faculty member assigned to teach the course is present in the classroom or laboratory." At the system's universities that grant doctorates, teaching associates may be appointed, but the number "may not exceed twenty (20) percent of the number of the regular full-time faculty in that department." Teaching associates may not teach more than 6 credits per semester and they must be courses offered by the department in which the associate is enrolled as a graduate student. Teaching associates must be assigned a full-time faculty member as mentor and receive a combination of fee waivers and stipend that must total no less than a "minimum of one-half of the current salary for an Instructor Step A."

APSCUF's agreement also controls the extent to which distinguished visiting professors may be employed: two years, with a third year possible "with the approval of APSCUF at local meet and discuss." Each university in the system with an enrollment of more than 6,000 full-time-equivalent students (FTE) may appoint one additional visitor for each additional 2,500 FTE. The distinguished visitors may not teach courses for an academic department with a qualified retrenched faculty member available.

Full-time temporary faculty not appointed in accordance with the contract clause on distinguished visitors are limited to one-year appointments as the result of a memorandum negotiated outside the contract itself that has subsequently been upheld in arbitration. Subsequent annual appointments must be approved by the union's local chapter through the meet-and-discuss process.

Portland State University: Under the agreement negotiated at Portland State University, the employer may not appoint a faculty member at a 50 percent FTE workload for more than seven years without awarding tenure. The university is prevented from "arbitrarily" reducing a faculty member's appointment below that level to avoid the tenure decision.

Fixing the Size of the Full-time Bargaining Unit

A key article of the Cooper Union contract--XXVI, on the size of the bargaining unit--states that for the duration of the agreement "the overall size of the bargaining unit (i.e., 56) shall not be reduced permanently, except that if economic or academic necessity requires a reduction in the number of permanent bargaining unit positions, nonbargaining unit teaching and librarian work will be reduced in order to maintain substantially the same proportion as existed on April 9, 1987." In an article on "Dismissal of Tenured Faculty," a section stipulates that the position of a tenured faculty member terminated for "a demonstrably bona fide extreme financial condition at the Cooper Union" cannot be filled by a replacement within three years "unless the released faculty member has been offered reinstatement and has declined." (p. 53)

Fixing a Full-time/Part-time Faculty Ratio

Rather than setting a faculty-student ratio, some locals have succeeded in including in their contracts a ratio between full-time and part-time faculty.

The Faculty Federation of the Community College of Philadelphia represents both full-and-part-time faculty, but in two contracts as the result of a legal requirement. The contract balances the share of instructional work through a contract provision that assigns at least 60 percent of the student credit hour instruction to full-time faculty and, consequently, no more than 40 percent to part-time instructors.

The Minnesota Community College Faculty Association, representing more than 2,200 full-time and part-time faculty in a statewide unit, negotiated a minimum ratio to insure the size of full-time faculty with continuing appointment. Section Sub.d, "Hiring Practices," provides that the system will fill a minimum 70 percent of the system FTE allocation with unlimited full-time faculty. No individual college shall fill less than 60 percent of its allocation with unlimited full-time faculty.

United Faculty of Eastern Washington University: A joint AFT-NEA unit succeeded in its first contract (1995) in negotiating an appointments clause that prevents the erosion of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty.

G. Types of Appointments.
1. As vacancies occur during the term of this agreement, the University may convert full-time tenure track positions to term and part-time positions through the budget making process. Under no circumstance will the staff ratio drop below 75 percent full-time tenure-track positions during the course of agreement. The budget making process will include consultation with the faculty through both the UFE and the senate, represented by their presidents.

Appointment of "special" full-time nontenure-track faculty may occur, but the "creation of these positions must be initiated from within the department requesting the position and have the support of the department members and are subject to review of the department members each year."

The United College Employees of the Fashion Institute of Technology has a provision in its contract under which the employer must "continue constantly to review the proportion of full-time to part-time so as to achieve academically desirable ratios." Not surprisingly, the union president, Louis Stollar, has not detected a strong management interest in defining precisely what "desirable" might mean.

Adopting Political Action

Administrators often insist they cannot prevent the gradual decline of the full-time faculty, citing an inadequate money supply and, of course, the need for flexibility, which means they want the administrative license to adjust the labor supply and its costs to variations in enrollment demand, just like their management counterparts in a manufacturing plant, who adjust production to demand for their "product." As a result, it is not surprising that many higher education unions have looked past the administration to the political process to address their concerns.

Limiting the Full-time/Part-time Faculty Ratio

A number of locals have attempted to induce the legislature to limit the percentage of courses taught by part-time faculty.

California Federation of Teachers Community College Council: The California Legislature passed an act in 1988, strongly advocated for by the CFT Community College Council, that set a standard for the maximum amount of instruction to be provided by part-time faculty in the state's huge array of community colleges. The legislation said, "At least 75 percent of the hours of credit in the California Community Colleges, as a system should be taught by full-time instructors." The Act, Assembly Bill 1725, emphasized the need for full-time faculty.

If the community colleges are to respond creatively to the challenges of the coming decade, they must have a strong and stable core of full-time faculty, particularly in the core transfer curricula. Under current conditions, part-time faculty, no matter how talented as teachers, rarely participate in college programs, design departmental curricula, or advise and counsel students. Even if they were invited to do so by their colleagues, it may be impossible if they are simultaneously teaching at other colleges in order to make a decent living.

Legislators then approved $140 million in "program improvement funds" to support the conversion of part-time positions to full-time.

The deteriorating California economy, however, provided the governing board a basis for not responding to the law. When the 1991 budget provided funding for a 2.08 percent growth in workload, but failed to grant a "cost-of-living adjustment," the board announced it lacked the money to meet the new requirement. Nevertheless, union officials report there have been gains in the conversion of part-time work to full-time positions in California as a result of the legislation.

Similar legislative solutions have been advocated by, among others, the Cook County College Teachers Union, AFT Local 1600 in the Illinois Legislature, and United University Professions (State University of New York), but thus far without securing enactment. The New York State Board of Regents had established a regulation in the late 1960's requiring that at least 50 percent of instructors in the state's higher education institutions have full-time positions, but abandoned the policy in the early 1980's, citing the need for "flexibility" as the reason.

Obtaining Higher Appropriations for Full-time Positions

Another way to address the full-time/ part-time issue is to secure funding specifically earmarked for permanent full-time tenured positions. The University Professionals of Illinois (UPI) has for years conducted an active program to increase full-time faculty positions in the legislature and governor's office, while maintaining a constant advocacy role before the Illinois Board of Higher Education. UPI has been the only voice demanding additional funds for tenure track positions, according to President Mitch Vogel.

This year, the effort brought results. The Board has budgeted $8.1 million for 1998 to restore full-time positions. For the past 10 years the governor has accepted the Board's budget, and the legislature has made only minor modifications. UPI will monitor the budget's progress to ensure the funding remains intact. Unrelenting pressure to spend more money on information technology (the Board has budgeted $10.6 million for "incremental" funding) means that the case for "human" capital investment must be made again and again. Faculty organizations must take the lead because no one else will take on the job.

Building Public Support

Whatever provision is being sought in contract negotiations, whatever case is being made before the board of trustees, state higher education department or legislature, the union's chances of achieving success are improved immeasurably when public opinion is engaged on its side. We all know, however, that, with notable exceptions, faculty have not been very gifted at communicating with the public.

While nearly all Americans want access to an affordable, quality higher education for themselves and their children, this does not always translate into support for faculty and higher education unions. Higher education's enemies have for too long dominated the airwaves portraying university faculty as uncaring about teaching and advising students, unwilling to work hard and insulated from accountability by the tenure system.

In recent years, AFT's leadership has become convinced that top priority needs to be placed on building a basic level of understanding and support for higher education faculty. The result of that concern was the recent launch of AFT's First Principles campaign. First Principles is a set of statements that outline plainly what our members stand for in higher education. Organized around the themes of "Opportunity, Quality and Accountability," First Principles lays out what AFT considers to be the essential components of a healthy higher education system. One of the First Principles statements begins as follows:

"Every student has a right to expect high-quality teaching by well-educated and prepared faculty in every course. We repeat: A quality college must have a corps of full-time, permanent tenured faculty in charge of the academic curriculum and teaching most of it."

The statement goes on to explain the importance of high achievement standards, close faculty-student interchange, academic freedom and tenure, among other things. The arguments that appeared earlier under the heading, Does It Matter? flow directly from the precepts of First Principles.

In this initial year of the First Principles campaign, national, state and local AFT leaders are working hard to give meaning to these precepts. The year has been marked by speeches and public events, budget and contract initiatives and media activities. Locals have been adapting the Principles to their individual circumstances. More information about the campaign is available from the AFT higher education department, 555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20001: phone: (202)879-4426.

The national office has targeted three First Principles issues for special attention: first, the vanishing professor and the treatment of part-time faculty; second, tenure; and third, technology. Last winter, AFT placed an advertisement in The Chronicle of Higher Education. It featured a photograph of the front seat of an automobile filled with papers, books, a computer and half-eaten food along with the caption, "Welcome to my office." The ad copy raised dual points about the exploitation of part-time faculty and the importance of maintaining a strong full-time faculty presence. The ad was replicated in a number of campus newspapers and served as the basis for a Washington Federation of Teachers rally on the steps of the Washington state capitol building as well as a rally by University Professionals of Illinois. Advertisements on tenure and technology will follow in 1998-99. AFT leaders are strongly urged to use First Principles as the basis for initiatives their locals design in the area of the vanishing professorate and part-time faculty.

Ultimately, our argument to the public is clear. If Americans want their higher education faculty to be productive and accountable, they must understand that an increasingly transient, vulnerable, underpaid group of instructors is not likely to fulfill their expectations. Such a profession is unlikely to attract outstanding young men and women willing to devote eight to 10 years of study preparing for the work of a teacher-scholar--most of them adding to their indebtedness each year--only to attempt to find a niche in an academic world where most faculty must accept semester-to-semester, or year-to-year, contracts, never certain of where they will be in a few months or whether they can even survive in the profession. AFT believes the union must make an all-out effort to prevent such a tragic result from unfolding.

Can We Help the Full-Time Professoriate Grow Again, While, at the Same Time, Organizing and Representing Part-Time and Other Nontenure-Track Faculty?

AFT believes that the careers of our members and the future of quality higher education depend on reinvigorating the corps of permanent, full-time tenured faculty at our colleges and universities. As we've seen, the national union and locals around the country are beginning to negotiate contracts, secure legislative action and build public support on behalf of this cause. At the same time, AFT is working harder than any other union to organize part-time faculty, temporary full-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants and secure for them better pay, benefits and working conditions. Is this policy inherently inconsistent? Does it make sense to strengthen the position of the part-time and temporary faculty whose unrestrained growth is of such concern?

This is a serious question and there is not unanimity of opinion on it. Some locals prefer not to organize part-time and other nontenure-track faculty at their institution. Some members believe, for example, that negotiating a salary raise for part-time faculty, or securing paid office hours for them, will strengthen the legitimacy of a hiring trend they bitterly oppose. Nevertheless, AFT's executive council and its higher education program and policy council have taken a position strongly in favor of organizing and fighting for the rights of part-time and other nontenure-track faculty. This position enjoys strong support for a number of reasons.

-- As a question of solidarity, many leaders consider it the basic obligation of the union to work to improve wages, benefits and working conditions for all academic workers on campus--especially the most poorly treated academic workers. And especially when the overwhelming majority of part-time faculty have been found to be hard-working, dedicated teachers.

-- The growth of nontenure-track faculty is based entirely on the financial benefit of hiring them. Improving the pay, benefits and working conditions of part-time and nontenure-track faculty may turn out to be the only way to cure the addiction of administrators to this form of cheap labor.

-- Part-time faculty are a fact of life on most campuses and there will always be a need for them to teach specialized subjects which do not require a full time position and when there are late and unexpected shifts in enrollment. Assuring that part-time faculty are capable, well trained and fairly treated is therefore a key element in maintaining educational quality.

-- Finally, many locals report that the active support of part-time faculty has significantly strengthened their hand in undertaking legislative and political action.

AFT Statements on Part-time Faculty

AFT's "Statement on Tenure," approved in 1979, opposed the appointment of full-time temporary faculty "except where the positions are genuinely temporary in nature." The statement contained the following policy position on part-time faculty.

The AFT advocates that part-time positions be limited in number to those that enhance the ongoing academic program. Further, persons in those part-time positions ought to have rights to due process, fair and professional evaluations, and guarantees of on going employment beyond a stated probationary period. Pro-rated salaries and fringe benefits ought to be available to part-time faculty and staff.

The Statement rejected the idea that "the part-time problem" was caused by the "the inadequacy of the part-time faculty members themselves; rather, it is their exploited status that lies at the root of the problem." At the same time, the statement described bluntly the impact on students and educational quality.

Nonetheless, an unfair two-layer employment situation does have detrimental effects on students and the quality of the instruction and services that they receive. Alienated and demoralized faculty members, always conscious of their vulnerability, cannot bring into the classroom the confidence and creativity necessary for the best teaching. Instructors called up at the last minute, using someone else's choice of texts, cannot do their best work. Faculty members unable to plan for the future are less effective in courses designed to follow in sequence. Uninformed of departmental/institutional policies and procedures, part-time faculty cannot serve as liaisons between the student and the institution. They are less able to advise students, even though they often teach courses largely subscribed by part-time students and/or students with the greatest need for well-informed instructors who are fully privileged members of the institution.

The statement called for: (1) a limit on the total number of hours taught by part-time faculty; (2) the end of "splintering" full-time positions into several part-time assignments; and (3) a "limitation on the number of persons teaching part-time in addition to full-time employment."

On the positive side, the statement endorsed that the following be made available to part-time faculty: (1) promotion eligibility; (2) an opportunity to "participate in the full range of professional responsibilities . . .[and be] paid for such involvement"; (3) "proportionate salary to the full-time faculty of the same qualifications doing the same work"; (4) for part-time faculty working less than 50 percent of average full-time load--50 percent of benefits, and those contributing more than 50 percent, full benefits; (5) appointment "well in advance, at least one month before the first day of classes"; (6) a seniority list and a probationary period, after which a faculty member on the list could be terminated only "for cause, with appropriate due process procedures"; and (7) priority consideration for a full-time position "in accordance with seniority and the requirements of the position."

Some local leaders have criticized selected aspects of AFT's part-time faculty policies--in particular, pro rata and benefits--as unrealistic in light of the financial difficulties of their institutions and the intransigence of administrators. The priority consideration for a full-time position has also been criticized as an infringement on the professional prerogatives of the departments and as interfering with the institution's responsibilty to search for the best possible candidate. Particular concern has been raised at the university level in view of the fact that a great number of part-time instructors do not have the Ph.D. Despite these concerns, the Statement continues to draw strong support from higher education unionists and has led to many advances that will now be described.

Organizing Efforts

The struggle to improve conditions for part-time and other nontenure-track faculty though collective bargaining is generally more difficult than for full-time faculty, because their positions are designed to be low-cost, under-supported and temporary.

The college or university as employer does not intend to treat such instructors well or to encourage loyalty, commitment, dedication and "excellence." The institutional attitude might be summed up as: "Here is the job: Take it or leave it." And because thousands of instructors (whether or not they want a full-time position) like or love their profession, their disciplines and teaching--the employers of higher education have an advantage and continue to use it. Faculty unions are the only countervailing force.

Despite the difficulties, AFT has enjoyed considerable success in organizing and representing part-time faculty. AFT represents about 35,000 part-time faculty members, more than any other union. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Miami-Dade and Alaska are among the most recent campaign zones.

Gains for Part-time and other Nontenure-track Faculty

Here are a variety of examples of what has been achieved for part-time faculty by locals around the country.

-- Improved benefits for part-time faculty have been achieved in a number of locations. The Washington Federation of Teachers lobbied the legislature to obtain medical coverage for part-time faculty. Several large community college locals in California--including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Los Rios and Ventura--offer some or complete medical insurance to their adjunct faculty. United University Professions, representing State University of New York faculty in New York, has negotiated health benefits for part-time employees who teach two or more classes in any one semester. Part-time faculty at the Pratt Institute, under the institution's contract, receive benefits that include health coverage, life insurance, disability and retirement after a period of time. Also eligible for retirement benefits are members of The Professional Staff Congress of the City University of New York.

-- Important measures of job security have been won through collective bargaining.

-- The Minnesota Community College Faculty Association has negotiated a guarantee of continuing appointments--"unlimited part-time status"--for adjuncts who meet the requisite qualifications and who have been employed four consecutive years teaching 50 percent to 80 percent of a full-time load for four consecutive years.

-- One very significant gain in the contract negotiated by the United College Employees/Fashion Institute of Technology was a form of continuing appointment similar to tenure. Under section 19.1, "All part-time classroom faculty who have completed seventy-two (72) hours of part-time service, including a minimum of fifty (50) hours in any one Department and have been re-appointed for a seventy-third (73rd) hour shall automatically be granted a Certificate of Continuous Employment." The union-administered Welfare Fund, which covers benefits other than health care (such as dental benefits and prescription drugs, disability insurance, etc.), requires the Certificate of Continuous Employment for eligibility.

-- The United Federation of College Teachers at Pratt Institute in New York secured an agreement under which part-time faculty are considered "regular" faculty unless they are substitute teaching a particular course for a specified length of time. Part-timers are granted equivalent adjunct titles at each level. They have paid office hours and may choose to be granted a Certificate of Continuous Employment after completion of ten semesters of service. At this time, if they so desire and subject to the evaluation process, they may request a full-time position that the Institute is obliged to provide if possible. The Pratt collective bargaining agreement also stipulates assignment of courses on a seniority basis within areas of competence.

-- Hiring preferences for full-time tenured positions have been negotiated.

-- The Community College Teachers of San Francisco AFT Local 2121 negotiated a hiring preference for part-time members of the unit. In the case of position openings where a part-time member of the unit and an outside candidate are equally qualified for the appointment and affirmative action requirements are satisfied, the part-time applicant is chosen. As a result, 75 percent of all new full-time appointments in recent years have been part-time faculty within the unit.

-- Under the contract of the United College Employees of the Fashion Institute of Technology, a part-time instructor with seniority has the right to receive a "summary of the Department's decision" if his or her application for an available full-time position has not succeeded.

-- Pro rata pay has sometimes been negotiated. The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties negotiated pro rata salary according to placement by rank on the eight-step salary schedule. Part-time faculty and temporary full-time--like probationary non-tenured faculty--are evaluated each year and thus eligible for promotion. Tenured faculty members receive a performance review every five years, although "interim evaluations may be conducted, if judged necessary by the department or required by the appropriate Academic Dean."

-- In order to improve the quality of teaching at their institutions, locals have negotiated entry and evaluation requirements for part-time faculty. As a result, unionized part-timers are more often subject to formal employment evaluations than other part-time faculty. Similarly, a recent survey in four states found that part-time faculty union members are more highly educated than nonmembers: 68 percent hold at least a master's degree, while 18 percent hold doctorates or professional degrees. This is about 2 percent higher than the numbers among nonmembers. The California Community College Council worked with the California Legislature to formulate and pass AB1725, an omnibus community college reform bill. As a result, since 1989 it has been a statutory requirement that all faculty be "equally" qualified to teach in the community colleges, holding a master's in academic fields as well as equivalent experience and training in vocational areas.

-- The lack of adequate paid office hours for part-time faculty has been a major quality concern. Among the locals that have obtained paid office hours are the Seattle Community College Federation of Teachers (for part-time faculty who teach over 25 percent of a full-load), the California Federation of Teachers Community College Council (reimbursing districts for part-timer office hours at the rate of one-half hour per class per week) and the United College Employees of the Fashion Institute of Technology. Under that contract, part-time instructors are compensated for office hours at one-half of their instructional hourly rate. They enjoy the same class size limitations as full-time faculty (25 students, 20 for English Composition), are evaluated at least once per semester for the first six semesters, are eligible for promotion, accrue sick leave and receive pro-rata employer contributions to the health plan.

A necessary compromise?

Finally, the president of the Temple Association of University Professionals/ AFT (TAUP) has put forward a new strategy to deal with its administration's insistence on appointing new faculty to nontenure-track positions. In April 1998, he wrote the university's faculty, deans and administrators asking for discussion of his plan, based on the local's own First Principles statement. He described the problem:

A near-total freeze of hiring of "Presidential Faculty" (tenure-track appointments) was imposed this year, increasing a trend toward hiring more Dean's appointments (non-tenure-track). Two dozen Presidential searches were abruptly cancelled in mid-semester, following upon a similar cutback in Spring 1997. While overall enrollments have been falling, there are departments short of faculty.

Art Hochner, the TAUP president, proposes that "we should upgrade the Dean's appointment to professional colleagueship." He reasons: "If we cannot directly succeed in hiring new Presidential colleagues, we must insist on vast improvements in the hiring process and in the terms and conditions faced by our Dean's faculty colleagues." He proposes "true professional status" for the temporary faculty, including:

-- Eligibility for multi-year contracts on first hire or renewal;

-- Mandatory peer evaluation for professional development and contract renewal--based on the quality of teaching, the scholarship of teaching (to borrow an idea from the late Ernest Boyer) and service to the profession, university and community;

-- Advertising of positions at competitive salaries, using rational search procedures with faculty involvement;

-- Automatic contract renewal for the next academic year unless notification occurs prior to a specified date;

-- Full and mandatory multi-stage peer-review in the fourth year to make a decision about "permanent" status. Permanent status, which would involve multi-year contracts of three to five years, would go into effect after the fifth year. Termination or non-renewal after this time could only take place for (a) "just cause"; (b) failure to pass mandatory peer evaluation at contract renewal time; (c) elimination of the program or curriculum for which the faculty member was hired; or (d) for significant decline in enrollment, either in the specialty area for which the faculty member was hired on in the home department.

-- Development of standards for promotion between regular ranks, comparable to clinician educators and regular faculty;

-- Full pension contributions and full vesting after five years employment;

-- Full access to the appeals process of the Faculty Senate Personnel Committee and to the TAUP grievance procedure for non-renewal, once permanent status is achieved;

-- A limit on the total number of such appointments in the TAUP bargaining unit to 10 percent to 15 percent of the total number of full-time faculty.

Hochner believes that the changes would compel the Temple administration to do "a vastly better job of budgeting human resource planning" and "would make Dean's appointments less disposable and would reduce the incentives to exploit them." He emphasizes that not to limit the number of temporary appointments is to endanger "Temple's status as a genuine research university...We cannot afford to sit back and do nothing."