A loyal EMUTalk.org reader sent me a link to this piece in Inside Higher Ed, “Don’t Call Me That,” which is about adjuncts making it clear that they are not professors to make a statement about their plight. Here are the opening paragraphs:
Bring readings to class, either in hard copy or electronic format. Sign up for a blog account in order to contribute to online class discussions. Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Don’t call me “professor.”
These are some of the expectations laid out in Karen Gregory’s course syllabus for her Introduction to Labor Studies course at Queens College, City University of New York. Understandably, it’s that last detail in particular, embedded in an information section on adjunct instructors at CUNY, that can spark lively discussion.
And that’s exactly the point.
“Students have heard the word ‘adjunct’ but they can’t always define it,” Gregory, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology and CUNY system adjunct, said in an e-mail. “Students begin to realize the word ‘professor’ can refer to a number of different people in the university, but that the word can also cover up hiring practices, wages and labor relations. Since exposing those relations more broadly is the point of my class, the ‘professor’ conversation makes an ideal case study during the first week of the course.”
And according to this link at something called “The Billfold,” this syllabus language is common on a lot of adjunct syllabi.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Frankly, I don’t like it when Lecturers, Part-timers or even (occasionally) graduate assistants allow their students to call them “Professor” or “Doctor” when they don’t have a PhD because– and I realize this makes me seem a little jerky and egotistical– I worked damn hard for that title and it shouldn’t be tossed around as a synonym for “Mr.” or “Ms.” But I like this reasoning even better because it is making visible to students (and hopefully parents and other stakeholders) that a lot of the people who are doing the work of “professors” are not.
What would you prefer students call these other instructors? Professor is a pretty safe, polite, and generic term, so I used it regularly as a student.
Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr. (if they have a PhD), their first name, etc., etc. And no, I don’t think “professor” is a generic term at all.
Yes it does make you sound jerky. I am glad you recognize that fact, although you’ve completely missed the point of that article.
No, I think I understand the point of the article. The adjuncts at CUNY are trying to make it clear to their students and beyond that the hiring practices of their university are suspect. They are trying to make visible the inequities that are largely invisible to the general public. I thought that was pretty clear, and, as I said in my post, I agree with that 100%.
Professors never let their ego get in the way of making something simple, do they?
Look, I tell my students to call me Steve. Many of them aren’t comfortable calling a professor by their first name, and in that case, I tell them to call me Professor Krause, and when they call me Mr. Krause, I don’t give them any guff. But it annoys me a great deal when people who are not professors ask their students to refer to them as “professor.”
The point here is the title Professor is something that is earned through a lot of hard work and education and it shouldn’t be equated with “Mr.” or “Mrs.” but more along the lines of “Doctor” or “Officer” or what-have-you. When you go see a physician or a dentist, you call that person “doctor,” right? For me, it’s the same thing.
Regarding Steve’s commentary: I don’t call people “Doctor” unless I know that they have a PhD. But I will call — and prefer to call — my college teachers professors. I think the vast majority of students consider any college level teacher a professor, but not a doctor.
“The point here is the title Professor is something that is earned through a lot of hard work and education and it shouldn’t be equated with “Mr.” or “Mrs.” but more along the lines of “Doctor” or “Officer” or what-have-you.”
This statement bugs me. I definitely see a difference between doctor and professor because of the degree that defines “doctor,” but as someone who has had the pleasure of having been taught by some great lecturers and adjuncts (and — at times — some really shitty professors) this blanket statement just doesn’t apply. There are some pretty hard working teachers who haven’t made professor. Do you really believe that the academy is an example of a pure meritocracy?
Also, I’m a little shocked that a professor is calling “Mrs. Miss and Ms.” safer, more generic terms than “professor.”
Regarding the article: The rationale of the article makes sense (though it also rests on the idea that adjuncts ARE doing the hard work that it takes to be a professor and not that they aren’t worthy of the title), but I’m not sure if not calling all teachers “professors” is really going to spark a conversation about fair pay outside of the academy and in the community where a large voting portion of private sector citizens are resistant to the idea of even full time professors being fairly compensated.
At CUNY, when I was there 20 years ago, there were already some academic programs entirely taught by adjuncts on a per course piecework pay scale. The situation has no doubt worsened — though CUNY is a great university in many ways. Nationwide, the majority of instructors are now what’s politely called “contingent”, which means, frankly, disposable at will by the employing institutions. This situation ensures a deepening problem for higher education — who oversees curriculum and program if all the instructors are disposable, and their qualifications aren’t seriously assessed? (I think I did well as a CCNY adjunct, but there was no real hiring process.) All this is by way of saying that protesting against the professor title by contingent instructors, part timers, adjuncts isn’t meant to be merely disputing nomenclature — it’s intended to call attention to universities practice of employing cheap instructors. And students don’t get cut rates on tuition for courses taught by the adjuncts. Whether this tactic works remains to be seen, but I’m all for anything the highlights the problem and calls students’ attention to it.
Fun facts: At EMU, about 45% of credit hours are taught by people on the non-tenure track. Many of them do have terminal degrees (from Universities just as prestigious as the one from which you received your degree). There are about as many non-tenure faculty at EMU as there are tenure-track faculty (approximately 650 in Fall, somewhat fewer in Winter). All of the non-tenure faculty are evaluated on the basis of their teaching, and the average length of employment for the group as a whole is about 9 years (closer to 14 years if you measure just the full time lecturers). They must be doing something right.
Many, though not all, also do various forms of service and research on the side, despite not being paid or institutionally supported for doing so. If all of them stopped doing anything but teaching, EMU would be a very different place. Non-tenure faculty advise student clubs, offer LBC opportunities, sponsor student research, do advising, serve on department, college, and university committees, officially represent EMU at events, coach award-winning scholastic teams, and do all manner of other kinds of service work. Perhaps they should not, and the reasons why they do so on what amounts to a volunteer basis, are varied and complex. It is certainly an exploitative system. Mark’s point about the challenge to governance and institutional development in a school staffed primarily by contingent faculty is a good one, too.
Still, the fundamental difference between them and you, Steve, is that you are paid two, three, or four times what they are. Don’t make the error of thinking that this makes you two, three, or four times better or more valuable. Frankly, some of your non-tenure colleagues could eat your lunch, if they had the institutional support (and reduced teaching load) that you have. While acknowledging that individual situations nearly always defy simplistic explanation, the big-picture reasons for these differences in status can be found in changes to the structure of higher ed in the last twenty or so years, not so much in the quality of the individual holding a particular tenure-track vs. non-tenure position. This is why I find it “jerky” of you to be so status-conscious at the individual level.
Incidentally, Steve, what do you do with your non-tenure colleagues who DO have terminal degrees? Are they “professors” in your book, or do you reserve that term only for tenure-track hires with PhDs?
How about people on the tenure-track who have an Ed.D? How about an MFA? (there are some of both in your dept, as I recall) If you want to hold fast to status markers, I suppose you had better start referring to your junior tenure-track colleagues as “Assistant Jones” and “Associate Smith” because, you know, they haven’t earned full yet and so aren’t true “professors.” I am sure they’ll appreciate it when you do that, so that they don’t forget their place.
Well, let’s walk this back a bit.
The original point of the post was to point to an article about CUNY adjuncts who thought it was important to point out to their students that they “weren’t professors” because the differences in teaching labor in higher education is frequently invisible to those of us not in that labor force– students, parents, voters, etc. This is why I think Angie and Kait had the comments they had here: to them, “professor” seems to be a generic term for “college teacher.” The CUNY adjuncts are trying to draw attention to that and I agree with the reasons why they are trying to make this visible. I also think it’s a problem when adjuncts have their students call them “professor” as if that distinction made no difference.
Second, I of course support our non-tenure-track faculty (NTTF) and I work with a program at EMU– first year composition– that is largely taught by adjuncts and part-timers. I have advocated on their behalf on many occasions; just ask the president of the lecturer’s union. These folks in our department do great work.
That said, NTTF do not have the same contractual obligations as tenure-track faculty (TTF), and that is clearly defined in the contract. You are right, Licorice, many of them do all kinds of things that they are not obligated to do, and I also think you are right that if NTTF find themselves doing things like sponsoring a club or serving on committees, there’s a good chance they are volunteering for things they ought to not to do for free. Frankly, what you’re describing is exploitive and it ought to be stopped– well, unless it’s something they’re interested in doing for their own personal reasons. I’ve known some NTTF who have been very active in sponsoring student clubs because they really liked the club. In my department, the vast majority of NTTF don’t do all of these extra things you’re talking about, and that’s the way it ought to be.
In my department generally and in my program specifically, the difference between NTTF and TTF is greater than just pay and teaching load. Folks like me have much higher levels of responsibilities and obligations in terms of service and scholarship, we have vastly different levels of responsibilities in advising students, and we have a greater level of expertise in our fields. In the English department, we have some folks who have PhDs in literature or MFAs in creative writing; I wouldn’t speculate as to why they don’t have tenure-track positions. We also have hired NTTF into TTF positions here and we have also had NTTF go on to other positions at other institutions. But the vast majority of or NTTF have MAs and that includes the ones who have been here 10 or more years. We don’t have any NTTF who has a PhD in my field of study, composition and rhetoric.
So Licorice, this is why I resent it when you say “some of your non-tenure colleagues could eat your lunch, if they had the institutional support (and reduced teaching load) that you have.” You don’t know what you’re talking about. You seem to be implying that the difference between my qualifications and abilities and those of some of my NTTF colleagues is minimal. Well Licorice, I have no idea who you are in real life, but anyone who is interested in me can look at my CV. I assure you that the only person who “eats my lunch” is me.
“This is why I think Angie and Kait had the comments they had here: to them, “professor” seems to be a generic term for “college teacher.””
Yes, but please let me be clear that I’m completely aware that not everyone who I call a “professor” are actually full-time faculty members. I’m also aware that adjuncts and lecturers are paid much less and receive much less support, and sometimes no benefits at all (depending on the school, etc.). So, me calling someone a professor — because in my mind, that’s what they are — doesn’t mean I’m assuming they are fairly compensated. At JCC, I called adjuncts professors knowing that they had the necessary degrees, but didn’t have health insurance and actually made about as much money as I did when I was working for a bank (and with only a high school diploma).
At EMU, I research all of my professors, so I know if someone is a faculty member, if they’re an associates, assistant, where they’ve gotten their degrees from, what area they studied.. and, if I’m unsure about them, I go a step further and search for the books or articles they’ve published. I do blog searches. I look them up on facebook to make sure there’s no glaringly obvious reason to avoid them (having “liked” Mitt Romney, perhaps).
The reason the article gives for not using the term professor and your reason (which you’ve stated in previous blog posts, as well) are different. CUNY adjuncts also appear to be coupling the name change with a statement that explains WHY they shouldn’t be called professors, and it’s not based on them not putting in the hard work.
As for not calling lecturers at EMU “professors,” it would take more than that to be meaningful because without making students aware of the difference in compensation and support, a name change would just seem like a symbol in a hierarchy. I’m only aware of the poor non-faculty pay because I’m interested in academia and I’ve been reading CHE for years. I don’t think it’s widespread knowledge. So, if the same type of collective action happens at EMU, I’ll gladly call the two lecturers I currently have by whatever name or title they want. But until then, I’m not going to make a distinction (unless that person corrects me) because I call my teachers “professor” out of respect, not because it’s going to change my support for getting rid of this destructive prioritized education model that is quickly working to turn everyone — or at least everyone in the humanities — into accepting adjunct level compensation.
PS: As a woman, I totally resent the idea of having to call another woman Ms. Mrs. or Miss.. I get the feminist idea behind “Ms.” but to a lot of people that just means a divorced woman. It seems like no matter what a woman would tell students to call her it would give some sort of information or impression about her that is no one’s damn business. Sure, a woman adjunct can request to be called by her first name, but why should she have to do that if she feels it’s important to set some level of formality or respect between her and her students?
“destructive prioritized” should read “destructive corporatized”