DEHUMANIZATION OF ADJUNCTS
For the unfamiliar, an adjunct is connected to a college or university and employed as a professor but is treated more like a contractor or vendor (Dedman, & Pearch, 2004). An adjunct supplies something the University needs, and the University in return gives the adjunct the title of Professor without the quality compensation, tenure, retirement, guaranteed contract renewal, and other benefits that come with being an internal faculty professor. In short, adjuncts do the heavy lifting of creating course content and delivering lectures, but do not receive benefits that keep them away from the grasps of relative poverty. Yet, according to Brennan, & Magness (2018), Higher Education Institutions cannot survive or turn profit without these adjuncts. According to Estimating the Cost of Justice for Adjuncts: A Case Study in University Business Ethics, adjuncts are being alienated as outliers of the system they labor to keep intact stating that
How can we use the current research to support a sustainable university system so all can benefit?
Higher education as a career is a bold move which does not afford economic stability (Brennan & Magness, 2018). Zelda stated that she did not complete her PhD program at Rutgers due to financial barriers and she made the right move. According to research, the return on investment for a PhD is in the negatives even before interest on loans gets calculated(Brennan & Magness, 2018). The question is whether the welfare of adjuncts is being considered over the bottom line of profits in the University system. This system has an ethical obligation to ensure contingent faculty and adjuncts are not exploited, but studies and news articles reveal that the system is failing far too many (Haney, 2015).
It is almost as if adjuncts are the cows to the higher education dairy farm; adjuncts play the role of professor but are treated more like animals. WOAH! That is dehumanizing you rebuke; but hear me out dear reader! Sociologists study how animals collaborate and interact in groups to achieve a goal, and they study how humans collaborate and interact in groups to achieve a goal (Kruse, 2002). However, animals who labor are not defined as workers ,and thus they do not receive the benefits that the human laborers at the farm are privy to. This appears to be the same for adjuncts in higher education; they labor in the system, but are not privy to the benefits that workers or full-time employees are granted – across the United States from community colleges to the Ivy League and everything in between. Like churning milk into butter, the role of adjunct needs to be clarified so we can homogenize University benefits to support educators that contribute to the knowledge and growth of the greater good through institutional learning; or we may end up with so much spilled milk that the product of our jointlabors spoil and the consequences are too great to amend. Essentially, treat all educators with dignity and respect or students will receive the natural consequences of burnt out adjuncts and a potential “great resignation” in the education sector. I do not aim to discredit the labors of tenured faculty, this is not supposed to be a conflict theory argument, this discussion is about the ethics of the business of higher education (Brennan & Magness, 2018). Education is an industry with profit margins, and the product we are selling is more than education, it is a future. So what future does this system promise the clarified and educated students who return to their alma mater full of hope and overflowing with dreams of educating and empowering the next generation of learners?
It is almost as if adjuncts are the cows to the higher education dairy farm;
Haney argues that RTO on higher education is only accessible for those who come from wealth and affluence prior to seeking a degree (2015). In the journal article “From factory ro faculty” Haney states that individuals starting from poverty before graduating with an advanced degree are more likely to live in relative poverty following matriculation (2015). The study essentially shows that gainful employment of graduates is directly related to SES. Interestingly but not surprisingly, the study concludes that the majority of social science and humanities faculty, regardless of full or part-time status, are satisfied with their job even in the face of unstable income (Haney, 2015). The findings of Haney’s study track well with my interview with Zelda. She loves her career and refers to it as a calling, something common within the social sciences, a commonality shared with clergy and artists. This reflects the creativity associated with faculty positions. The findings also connect to my interview experiences since my subjects’
"Except that dairy cows have health insurance benefits, and free room and board"
SES prior to graduating with an advanced degree was relatively low, and remains low following 20 years of employment as an adjunct faculty. Zelda shares how she is unable to have “luxuries” such as owning a home due to the significant student debt that continues to follow her. Haney’s study combined with Zelda’s story correlates well with Brannan & Magness’ research findings that Higher education as a career is a bold move which does not afford economic stability (2015;2018). I will conclude that it is unethical to pay adjunct faculty members poverty wages. According to Deadmand and Pearch, my next interview subject is one of many current or aspiring academics kept out of a system concerned with profits over people (2004). The trend of underpaying and undervaluing adjunct faculty raises additional questions regarding stability, efficiency, and quality in higher education (Dedman & Pearch, 2004). Learners are consumers of a product, the product is knowledge and education (Dedman & Pearch, 2004). How can we use the current research to support a sustainable university system so all can benefit? Adjuncts, tenures, administrators, investors, and the greater public all benefit from a healthy and dynamic education system that considers the welfare of its members and consumers above profits (Dedman & Pearch, 2004).
I will conclude that it is unethical to pay adjunct faculty members poverty wages
Comments