NO
Richard P. Mulcahy:
Misplaced compassion does more harm than good

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 43 percent of all higher education faculty are in part-time positions. Shocking as this statistic may be, it is compounded by what appears to be a prejudice displayed by many hiring committees against colleagues who have held such positions. Essentially, the argument is that if a job candidate were truly capable, he or she would have found a "real" position already and not have needed to take any part-time slots.

This attitude is quaint at best and criminally arrogant at worst. It ignores two realities that have taken a horrific toll on American academic life for nearly 30 years: a crowded job market combined with shrinking budgets. Moreover, an anticipated rise in available academic posts, produced by a combination of increased enrollments and faculty retirements, has not materialized. Sadly, while enrollments have increased, as have retirements, many college and university administrations have opted not to fill vacant posts as a cost-savings device.

Confronted with this situation, it is understandable, and maybe even laudable, for some to argue that colleagues in part-time appointments be given preferential treatment in hiring when a full-time position becomes available. Tempting as this idea is, the answer must be "no."

The purpose behind our current method of job searching is for hiring committees to find the best-qualified people available. Although the present system is by no means perfect, it ensures that a process based upon fairness and merit is followed.

Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. In the recent past, academic hiring was based in a number of instances upon whom a candidate knew, as opposed to what the candidate knew or could do. This is the heart of the problem. While giving part-time faculty preference in filling full-time appointments might appear to be a compassionate thing to do, it would create more injustice than fairness.

First, such preferences would function as an "old boy" network, whereby an applicant's qualifications and abilities would be discounted in favor of another's personal connections. Second, how would such preferences be given? How could such intangibles as instructional competence, professional experience and years of service be quantified? Third, how would a hiring committee handle a situation where two or more part-timers working at a given college or university applied for the same position?

Like it or not, these and more difficult questions, would arise. Certainly, the concerns of part-time faculty need to be addressed. However, we cannot do it through hiring preferences. Those of us who currently have full-time appointments must lobby those in authority to create the additional full-time positions that are currently needed if academic quality and standards are to be maintained.

YES
Nancy DeFrates-Densch:
It's a win-win situation for all parties

Part-timers deserve preference in hiring situations for two important reasons: They know and are known by the employer, and they have proven their commitment to the institution. For the sake of continuity, hiring part-time faculty for full-time positions can reduce turnover and ensure quality.

An employer considering hiring a current part-time teacher already knows the degree to which this teacher matches the needs of a given position and the culture of the school. Such a fit is extremely important to the long-term success of any candidate. I have seen many teachers enter a position full of enthusiasm, only to discover that the culture of the school does not match with their personalities or philosophies. This is not a good situation for anyone.

Another bad situation stems from faculty who use initial full-time positions as steppingstones to the positions they really desire. For instance, one might accept a position in a small school and use that experience to gain access to a larger, more prestigious school. From the moment these people accept the job, their eyes are on the door. Again, this sets up "revolving door positions," making quality program development nearly impossible. Part-time teachers, who have been at a school for a period of time, are likely to be committed to that school. They have often demonstrated that commitment through years of service. As such, they are far less likely constantly to be looking for something "better."

As people who have hired personnel know, looking good on paper and interviewing well do not necessarily translate into quality teaching. Many candidates know what to say when asked about their "philosophy of teaching"; however, unless the candidate has taught for you, there is no way to know whether this philosophy will be translated into the classroom practices you desire. Presumably, if an instructor has been teaching on a part-time basis, he or she has been evaluated. A history of positive evaluations would indicate that an instructor is a capable teacher.

Finally, part-time teachers work extremely hard, often for lower prorated pay than their full-time tenure-track counterparts. They often teach the courses nobody else wants to teach and have the schedules nobody else wants. Considering part-time teachers for full-time tenure-track positions is a way of acknowledging the years of service these people have given the school. This is a win-win proposition. Schools get qualified, experienced teachers whom they know can teach in their system and are committed to doing so. Teachers get the security of full-time, tenure-track employment, making them that much more likely to stay at the school and continue their fine performance.