Contingent Faculty and Academic Freedom in the Twenty-First Century

Q2 Social Sciences First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2015-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2015.1016362
S. Smith
{"title":"Contingent Faculty and Academic Freedom in the Twenty-First Century","authors":"S. Smith","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1016362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As we celebrate the centennial of the AAUP’s 1915 Declaration on Academic Freedom and Tenure, those core principles are still essential, but the changing administrative regime of higher education institutions has put them at risk. The dramatic increase in the number and percentage of contingent faculty positions— those on annual or term contracts rather than tenured or tenure-track appointment—undermines academic freedom in teaching, research, and public service. Where academic freedom was once fought and secured against specific charges or external pressures from particular ideological forces, the threat is now more insidious and structural from within the academy as well as outside interests. It is beyond the scope of this article to detail the forces and circumstances that have led to cuts in public funding for public universities and the growing reliance on private funds with motives and priorities that have often compromised the mission, priorities, and core academic values of the scholarly enterprise of both public and private institutions. The increasingly ubiquitous market-driven education policy and its consequences have been argued quite well by others. The point I wish to address is the seismic shift to contingent faculty and the stagnant or reduced number of tenure and tenure-track faculty. The argument is always economic exigence rather than any claim that it improves the quality of education. Administrators resist approving tenure track lines to save money by hiring contingent faculty with lower salaries and reduced benefits. At the same time, this alleged policy of scrimping has done nothing to slow the growth of the number of administrators and their salaries, an obvious point without mentioning the salaries and contracts of athletic coaches. Only faculty salaries and positions seem to be fodder in the losing battle to hold down the cost of tuition and fees for our students. Contingent appointments have comprised a majority of all faculty positions for more than a decade. While adjuncts, lecturers, instructors, post-docs, and visiting faculty members are valuable, even essential, they are not particularly valued by","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"27 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1016362","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1016362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

As we celebrate the centennial of the AAUP’s 1915 Declaration on Academic Freedom and Tenure, those core principles are still essential, but the changing administrative regime of higher education institutions has put them at risk. The dramatic increase in the number and percentage of contingent faculty positions— those on annual or term contracts rather than tenured or tenure-track appointment—undermines academic freedom in teaching, research, and public service. Where academic freedom was once fought and secured against specific charges or external pressures from particular ideological forces, the threat is now more insidious and structural from within the academy as well as outside interests. It is beyond the scope of this article to detail the forces and circumstances that have led to cuts in public funding for public universities and the growing reliance on private funds with motives and priorities that have often compromised the mission, priorities, and core academic values of the scholarly enterprise of both public and private institutions. The increasingly ubiquitous market-driven education policy and its consequences have been argued quite well by others. The point I wish to address is the seismic shift to contingent faculty and the stagnant or reduced number of tenure and tenure-track faculty. The argument is always economic exigence rather than any claim that it improves the quality of education. Administrators resist approving tenure track lines to save money by hiring contingent faculty with lower salaries and reduced benefits. At the same time, this alleged policy of scrimping has done nothing to slow the growth of the number of administrators and their salaries, an obvious point without mentioning the salaries and contracts of athletic coaches. Only faculty salaries and positions seem to be fodder in the losing battle to hold down the cost of tuition and fees for our students. Contingent appointments have comprised a majority of all faculty positions for more than a decade. While adjuncts, lecturers, instructors, post-docs, and visiting faculty members are valuable, even essential, they are not particularly valued by
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
21世纪的随机教员与学术自由
在我们庆祝美国学术联合会1915年发表的《学术自由和终身教职宣言》100周年之际,这些核心原则仍然至关重要,但高等教育机构行政体制的变化使它们面临风险。临时教师职位的数量和比例的急剧增加——那些签订年度或定期合同而不是终身聘用或终身聘用的人——破坏了教学、研究和公共服务方面的学术自由。学术自由曾经是与特定的指控或来自特定意识形态力量的外部压力作斗争并得到保障的,而现在的威胁则是来自学术界内部和外部利益的更加阴险和结构性的威胁。导致公立大学削减公共资金以及越来越依赖私人资金的力量和环境超出了本文的范围,私人资金的动机和优先事项往往损害了公立和私立机构的学术事业的使命、优先事项和核心学术价值。越来越普遍的以市场为导向的教育政策及其后果已经被其他人论证得相当充分。我想说的是,向临时教师的巨大转变,以及终身教职和终身教职教师数量的停滞或减少。争论的焦点总是经济上的急迫性,而不是声称它能提高教育质量。管理人员拒绝批准终身教职,以节省开支,雇佣工资较低、福利减少的临时教员。与此同时,这种所谓的节衣缩食政策并没有减缓管理人员及其工资的增长,这一点很明显,不包括体育教练的工资和合同。似乎只有教员的工资和职位,才是我们为压低学生学费和杂费而进行的失败战役的饲料。十多年来,临时任命占所有教员职位的大部分。虽然兼职教师、讲师、讲师、博士后和客座教授都是有价值的,甚至是必不可少的,但他们并没有被特别重视
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
First Amendment Studies
First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
期刊最新文献
The digital citizen as technoliberal subject: The politics of constitutive rhetoric in the European Union’s Digital Decade The Supreme Court’s rhetorical construction of home On the censoring of Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb An accounting from Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1