8/29/3

Greetings,colleagues;
and commendations on the many
eloquent expressions of outrage:

        I wish only to add a example of how, in at least one
instance, the determination of salaries at the low level of faculty
status has worked--especially apt, I believe, when we examine the
criteria of "workload"
and "responsibility," which has been announced as reasons for the
raises as reported in this morning's "Times-Free Press."
        In our department, as almost everyone on campus recognizes,
our ability to offer a large pattern of writing courses (and not just
at the freshman level) is predicated on the possibility of
identifying and hiring of a cadre of qualified teachers--which is to
say, people with at least a Master's degree, or, say, the reasonable
equivalent training in English.  Increasingly over the past few
decades, we have been extremely fortunate in finding in this
community an adequate number of such people, available at appropriate
times to meet our complex schedule of classes and actually willing,
even with these backgrounds of education and experience, to assume
these duties for stipends that are all too embarrassing even to
mention here.  Most of these sophisticated and often quite mature
teachers are assigned one or more sections, with about 25 or so
students each, and termed "Adjunct Instructors"--or generically,
"part-timers."
        In addition to the classroom instruction, they are then
assigned cubicles, which they generally share with at least one other
teacher, for   keeping office hours, when they are required to meet
with their students, normally on an individual basis, for purposes of
discussing the student's work and progress in the course.  All of
these responsibilities are linked to the attendant workload, which
involves reading and evaluating the essays or reports or other
written assignments, basic chores that go with the territory: i.e.,
usually done on a week-end.  Even a casual reader here, those not
close to the mechanics of this kind of instruction, can conclude that
we are talking about an extraordinary  amount of sheer work and
responsibility, not to mention dedication and patience--for precious
little money.
        Occasionally, especially in the recent wake of apprehension
on this campus concerning accreditation standards, our department has
been permitted to designate--that is, in effect, to promote--a few of
these adjunct instructors to one year full-time, non-tenure track
appointments, with such titles as "Lecturer," with additional
benefits not granted to those on adjunct status.  Those teachers so
selected, as one would assume, have demonstrated exemplary skills,
dedication, and classroom effectiveness.
        In the one instance I am highlighting here, one of our
part-timers  received last year such a "promotion," a well-deserved
one. This colleague had been an "adjunct," teaching in the department
since the Fall of 1996, having not only earned a M. A. in English but
had also completed a significant number of hours of graduate study at
two other separate institutions, had taught in local secondary school
systems, public and private, as well as at a nearby community
college.. That full-time appointment, "Lecturer of English" for
2002-2003 carried with it a salary of $28,300 for that academic year,
with a four-course teaching load.  Because of the heavy demand for
freshman writing course, he was later assigned a fifth section, at a
quite modest increase in stipend but a staggeringly heavy extra
burden. (Let us hear no further talk from the administration about
someone  "doing the "work of at least two people.!")
         His work for that year was clearly demanding, requiring an
almost constant traffic of students for consultation in his
office--and an incalculable amount of time grading papers. His
student evaluations were glowing; and his fellow teachers recognized
the rich value he brought to the department and to the university.
        Needless to say, someone that prepared and that capable of
such work  and responsibility was offered re-appointment, in August
of 2003, on the same terms, one-year, full-time, non-tenure track, at
least four sections of composition a semester---but at a salary of
$25,000, over $3000 less than he had earned the prior year.  After
considering the offer for a short period, he turned it down and left
the employ of UTC.  It was a stunning rebuke to him, one which many
of us shared.
        At a social occasion some time afterwards, I outlined these
details and   circumstances to one of the top administrators of this
university, who apparently knew nothing of this kind of treatment of
some of our faculty, a level of faculty who are increasingly becoming
the dependable rank and file, the  metaphoric glue, that makes our
cohesion as a teaching institution not only feasible but possible.
He promised seriously to look into the matter and to let me know
something.  I can only assume that in the press of other duties, he
must have forgotten.
        But it is just such oversights as this one on the part of
those who do make the decisions and,to quote Prof.Marvin Ernst on
this issue, who set the priorities, that make this entire question of
where and how the important work and the fundamental responsibilities
of this or any other university find redress and proper answers.

        tcw