Mr. Mulcahy calls hiring preferences for part-timers "misplaced compassion," but to me it seems only pragmatism (December 2001/January 2002 Speak Out, "Should part-timers get preference in hiring?"). He seems to think that preference means that someone not qualified for a position will be hired just because the person has taught part time for the school already.

By preference, however, I understand it to be assumed that candidates are otherwise about equally qualified. The only question that arises then is what we mean by "about." This question can be resolved by clearly specifying which qualifications are "must have" and which are "nice to have." If two candidates have the same must-have qualifications, then preference should go to the part-timer for all the reasons Ms. DeFrates-Densch lays out, even if the other candidate has more nice-to-have qualifications. But if the part-timer is missing must-have qualifications, then he or she should not even be considered.

--Chip Burkitt
White Bear Lake, MN

Richard P. Mulcahy has the thankless job of defending an indefensible position. The best he can come up with is to claim that the "old-boy" network would give part-timers a leg-up in the hiring process. Gee, I always thought the old-boy network enabled someone who knew someone to get a full-time position. If anything, a part-timer applicant undergoes even more scrutiny because he or she has been working at the school. The hiring committee would have student evaluations and assessment reports that would be far more accurate than the word of a colleague for a friend. And if "two or more part-timers working at a given college or university applied for the same position," wouldn't the hiring committee be in a position to choose the best applicant, based on those in-house evaluations?

Part-timers don't need compassion. We need fair consideration in the hiring process, and that consideration should include the record we have already compiled in serving at the school(s) where we want to work full time.

--Abraham Hoffman
Los Angeles

I am writing this letter to report my experience teaching as a part-timer at the college level. Two years ago, I accepted a position at a university in New England, teaching a foreign language. Before getting the position, I was interviewed and asked to teach two classes. At the end, I was told that my teaching style was very good, and the university offered me the job.

After one year of teaching there was an opening for a full-time position for a year. Nobody had notified me about this position but, when I found out, I applied.

Everything changed when I applied for the full-time position. Suddenly I was not a very good teacher. So, to avoid problems, I withdrew my candidacy and I offered my supervisor a chance to come again to my class to observe. She came with the director of the program and they declared that I "had taught the class very well." So I continued as a part-time instructor.

The next year there was a new opening, this time a full-time position. I applied again. As soon as I did it, my teaching became bad again. Nobody told me that my application had been rejected so I had to ask to find out. All e-mails concerning the candidates for the job were hidden from me, and the situation became very unpleasant. After all of this, after telling me that I was a good teacher, then a bad one, then a good one, then a bad one, [the administration] came back to me and offered me a part-time job again. My teaching evaluations were very high (4.3-5 on a 5-point scale), and the last semester there I taught four courses. The new [full-time]professor had a degree from Stanford. The first semester he taught only two courses. Maybe too late, I left that university.

To be a part-time instructor is living hell! I found myself without protection and completely used by the system. The conclusion for me is that preferences do not matter since many people who are in charge will treat part-timers according to their will and political needs of the moment. Maybe we should change the entire academic structure before asking this question.

--C. A. Stevens
Nashua, NH

Unions keep us strong

Congratulations on your article, "Three things we learned," (Off the Tower, December 2000/January 2001). It hit home as effectively as anything I've read in these past three terrible months. Jeff Faux brings us back--and rightly so--to the stark fact that among those injured most grievously were working-class folks and their families. Let us hope that it draws a new focus to the importance of unions, and their members, in keeping our country strong through thick and thin. Michael Gibbs' illustration was stunning as well and brought the tears to my eyes. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece.

--Marjorie Colville
Ridgefield, CT