In a sense, I am Jacob Horner.

So if you are an academic and connected to the internet, you have likely read this story.  If you haven’t, go do so.  I’ll wait.


OK, welcome back.  Pretty shitty, right?  There’s plenty of outrage to go around, and I can’t hope to address it all in due time.  But let’s start here.


First, let’s note the following: “A university spokeswoman provided a statement in which Duquesne’s chaplain and director of campus ministry, the Rev. Daniel Walsh, says that Ms. Vojtko lived at the university’s Laval House, a building for undergraduates studying to enter the priesthood, for several weeks during the past year, at the university’s invitation, after Duquesne officials ‘learned of problems with her home’.”  In short, what this means is, the university knew that they were not paying her a living wage, and decided that the best way to handle the situation was to offer her temporary housing.  Sure, in a very short-sighted nature, a nice gesture.  But it’s little more than that, a gesture.  The more important thing to note is that the university was aware of the problem.  This was a woman who devoted 25 years to Duquesne University.  Her commitment to the university cannot be questioned.  But what of the university’s commitment to her?


One answer is that the university has a mission.  According to the university’s webpage, they announce the importance of “Service to the Church, the community, the nation and the world.”  So my first question is, where does Margaret Mary Vojtko fall into that mission?  Is she part of the community?  As a 25-year veteran of the university, this seems to be a no-brainer.  So how exactly did they define their commitment to Prof. Vojtko?  It’s very easy to say one has a commitment to the community, but very difficult to embrace those individual members of that community.  Our community is those people who live in our neighborhood, who work by our side, whose lives are woven into our own.  Clearly, Prof. Vojtko was a part of the Duquesne community.  So one could reasonably ask, where was the service to her?


Further, the university has a religious affiliation.  Again, according to the university’s webpage, they define this mission as “an enterprise of service to God through serving students.”  OK, so how does a university serve its students?  Primarily, through its faculty.  For all the talk about administrators “serving” students with their work – and all the related talk of various departments that provide services for students – it’s the faculty who most directly serve students on a daily basis.  It’s the faculty who provide the education the students seek.  And just as importantly, perhaps, it’s the faculty who are the first point of contact for many students regardless of what questions those students have.  In my experience – 16 years of college-level teaching – faculty are the ones students go to when they need advising, mentoring, counseling, information about campus and community services, etc.  We faculty members are the human faces that students associate with the university.  And for all the availability of information on the internet, students will almost always go to a trusted faculty member first when they have a question about the university.  And universities know this.  At my university, faculty are asked to staff recruiting events, call prospective students, and work with other offices whenever students are involved.  And to return to Duquesne, this is how they serve God; they serve God by serving students.  And students are served first and foremost by the faculty.  So again, one could reasonably ask, how did Duquesne think they were serving students when they so horribly mistreated one of their own faculty, one of those people whose primary function at the university was serving students?


A friend of mine earlier tonight noted that it was especially egregious that a religious school would so mistreat one of its own.  And my above comments might suggest that I agree.  But I don’t.  I don’t expect religious institutions to be more moral, more humane, that other human institutions; I don’t hold religious institutions to higher standards.  And suggesting that religious institutions have a deeper commitment to humanity, in my mind, ignores that we all have a human obligation to one another.  Yes, Prof. Vojtko was a member of the faculty at a religious university.  But even if Duquesne were a secular institution, their treatment of her would be just as shameful.  Because above everything else, Margaret Mary Vojtko was a human, a person, a woman who walked with and lived among others in her community.  And she was a person who needed help.  Religion or not, when you know someone who needs help, and you are in a position to help them, the human thing is to help.


And so we return to this: “He also writes that he and other priests visited her regularly during her illness.”  The members of the university knew of her problems.  The priests cared enough to visit her home.  A nice, even human gesture.  But again, just a gesture.  Because what she needed – what the university knew she needed – was assistance paying her bills.  I have no idea what these priests from the university were doing other than visiting her.  I hope they were lobbying the university to treat their adjuncts better.  I hope they went to administration to call them out for exploiting faculty.  I hope they are using their position to initiate change.  If they did, they were not successful, as first “the university reduced Ms. Vojtko’s course load to one class per semester last fall, decreasing her annual earnings to below $10,000,” and then “Ms. Vojtko learned that she was not being rehired for this fall’s semester.”


In other words, after learning of her difficulties and making gestures toward her, the university’s official response was to cut back her work and then unemploy her.


This, as many of you should well know, is the position of the adjunct.  Adjuncts are contingent faculty, and do not have the same job security enjoyed by tenure-stream faculty and administrators.  Adjuncts are employed at the whim of the university.  This was a lesson I learned when I was adjuncting (for 2 years between my MA and PhD programs, and again for 6 years while working on my PhD).  On more than one occasion, I lost a course when a tenure-stream faculty member decided to poach it.*  And when adjuncts are prevented from unionizing, their length of service becomes irrelevant.  This means that an adjunct is no more valuable to the university after 25 years than after 1 year.  Of course, long-serving adjuncts are very valuable to the students, to their colleagues, and to the various members of the university community.  But as a paid employee who is eligible for benefits, raises, and other employment perks afforded to full-time, tenure-stream employees, the adjunct does not enjoy any job security.  And this is why I use the word “unemploy” above, to highlight the fact that the university did not fire Prof. Vojtko.  They didn’t have to; they just didn’t renew her contract.  But this is still an overt act; they caused her unemployment.**


You’re on the internet, so I have no doubt you can find all sorts of information about the plight of adjuncts, so feel free to do so now.  I’ll wait.***


OK, now that we are all on the same page, what do we do?  How, in other words, do we attempt to solve the problem?  


First, we have to recognize that it’s a problem.  Many university administrators, like Barbara Altmann, vice provost for academic affairs at the University of Oregon, would have us believe that “In order to handle that huge rise of students that we’ve experienced in the last five years, we’ve had to add adjuncts […] We have more non-tenure track faculty than is ideal. Now we’re at the point where we have to start righting that ratio a little bit.”  No, you did not have to add adjuncts.  You had to add faculty, but there was no need for those faculty to be contingent.  That was a business decision, and one that helped to fuel the staggering demand to raise administrative salaries at the expense of hiring full-time, tenure-stream faculty.  (I’d like to as Barbara Altmann how many of the administrators hired to handle the rising student population were part-time.  There’s a reason why you have never heard of an “adjunct administrator.”)


Don’t believe me?  Here is the salary information for the State University of New York system.  For the six years I’ve been here, we faculty have been told that the university cannot afford to hire tenure-stream faculty, and so regularly set hiring freezes for full-time employees, although they do allow the hiring of adjuncts in order to cover our instructional needs.  (My department hired three new tenure-stream faculty for this year, which we are very happy about.  Especially as the university was told this year that, due to budget constraints, no tenure lines will be approved.)  Anyway, with that link, you can see the salaries for all SUNY administrators.^  What this information should make clear is that universities can, in fact, hire full-time faculty.  They simply don’t want to.  They would much rather pay administrators massive salaries than hire new full-time faculty.


But awareness is only the first step.  Awareness without action is nothing more than posting a Facebook status and hoping that you will change the world.^^  What can we do?  What actions can we take?  Here are some suggestions, and please feel free to post others in the comments:


1. Organize.  As a former union member, I always suggest this as my go-to solution.  And as someone who has been on strike in the past (as a Teamster, and let me tell you the Teamsters know how to organize and strike), I can tell you that work-stoppages can be very effective.  If you are tenure-stream, tenured, or an administrator, stand up with your contingent colleagues and demand better treatment, better pay, better benefits.  Let them know that you have their backs.  Especially when the revolution comes.


2. Become part of your university’s leadership structure and ensure that contingent faculty are not left out of the decision-making process or treated officially as second-class colleagues.  To give a local example, last year some of my tenured colleagues suggested (as a faculty senate action) that all tenure-stream faculty be given access to records for all students, and not just those students they advise.  The argument was that such information could be useful to faculty in writing letter of recommendation, providing informal mentorship, etc.  When I asked why this access was being limited to tenure-stream faculty and not to all faculty regardless of contract status, I was told that giving this access to adjuncts would be “inappropriate.”  I asked for clarification, and was told that because adjuncts are by definition part-time, they don’t have the same investment in the university or its students as do the tenure-stream faculty.  In short, he was essentially arguing that part-time faculty are undeserving of the rights of full-time faculty because they are part-time; the contract status imposed on them by the university is then used by the university as proof that they are lesser colleagues.


3. Refuse to participate in the subtle but very real common indecencies that enforce the second-class situation of contingent faculty.  To give another local example, last year one of my tenured colleagues sent a scathing email to my department, insisting that we stop using the title “Prof.” when referring to adjunct faculty (and that we use the “more appropriate”^^^ “Mr.” and “Ms.”).  Her reasoning was that the title “Prof.” is something that is conferred to people with doctorates who are part of the tenure stream.  I have two problems with this reasoning.  First, it ignores the large (and growing) number of adjuncts who hold PhDs (or similar terminal degrees).  Second, it insists that we should treat colleagues based on their contract status; that their contract status should determine who they are and how they should be referred to.  Oh, and what made this a really shitty move?  She sent this to the entire department, including all the adjuncts.


This brings us back to Prof. Vojtko and her position at Duquesne.  Duquesne treated Prof. Vojtko the way they treat adjuncts, and not the way they treat other members of their professional community.  For instance, the university recently celebrated the professional accomplishments of Professor Emeritus Dr. Joseph Willcox, on the occasion of his 85th birthday.  For those of you who don’t know, “emeritus” is the term used for retired faculty.  In other words, the same year that Duquesne University celebrated a retired faculty member,^^^^ they chose to ignore the plight of another long-term faculty member.  And as I noted above, this was a plight they were absolutely conscious of.  They knew that she was in trouble, and their response was to make sure she wasn’t employed.


Oh, and in the event you suspect this is apples-to-oranges?  Dr. Willcox was celebrating his 85th birthday.  When she died, Prof. Vojtko was 83.  And had been working part-time at Duquesne – teaching the same student population as Dr. Willcox – for 25 years.


So if you’ve made it this far, thanks.  And now I have but one request for you: do something.  This is a problem.  If you are in academia, you know this to be a problem.  And if you are tenured or serve in an administrative role, stand up and do something.  Lots of people online have been complaining about Duquesne.  There has been, as the article I linked to above noted, quite a bit of outrage.  And for those of you who are outraged, go do something.  Stand up and do what’s right.  Because if you are not trying to change things in your own backyard, you don’t get to complain about Duquesne. You are Duquesne.



*In one case, the professor’s course was unenrolled, so he canceled his and took mine.  That was $2,500 I didn’t make that semester.  In another case, the professor was angry to learn I had been given an upper-division course (in my area of specialization, but not his); he insisted that I teach his Freshman Composition course and he take my Modern Novel course, because it was inappropriate that an adjunct teach such courses.  (I will use that word again later in this post.)


**Seriously, think on this. You have worked for your employer for 25 years.  And you still have to be rehired for your job regularly.  It’s one thing to require regular performance reviews.  It’s quite another to have to be rehired for your job, for the same job you have been doing for 25 years.  What other fields ask their employees to spend 25 years being regularly rehired for their own job, a job that the university clearly needs to fill long-term?


***You could start with my earlier post regarding adjuncts, or this recent story, which should help you realize that many of the people who adjunct are cobbling together a variety of other part-time jobs to make ends meet.


^Sadly, it is not up-to-date.  However, it’s still pretty astounding to learn, for instance, that my university provost earned over $150,000/year in 2008.  And this does not include her expense and travel accounts.  This was just salary.


^^You won’t.


^^^It’s astonishing how often this word – appropriate – gets used in discussions that work to keep this system in place.


^^^^One who did continue to teach part time over the summers in his retirement.  But note that he was retired.  He was not made unemployed by university fiat.



Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “In a sense, I am Jacob Horner.

  1. Hans Castorp

    I have a different take on your snooty colleague who insists on reserving the title “prof” for tenureable faculty: they are right (though perhaps for the wrong reasons). Think of it this way — insisting on the correct nomenclature draws attention to the very plight that you describe. If “professor” were used (correctly) to refer to those with permanent appointments, students (and more importantly parents) would realize that they are not being taught by “professors” but by part-timers and “staff” ca. 80% of the time. (“Dr.” is the correct title for anyone with a PhD, and “Mr.” and “Mrs.” for anyone else.) This is not to denigrate non “professors” — I, like you, have been on both sides of that fence. But as long as our students (who tend to address even TA’s as “Professor”) are not made aware of the distinction, and parents don’t demand that their kids are taught by “real” professors (even though you and I know that the problem with adjuncts is not their quality but their working conditions), nothing will happen to remedy the situation. Calling those without permanent appointments “professor” is “a nice, even human gesture. But again, just a gesture”; it papers over the problem and actually gives cover to the administrations you decry.

    • Hans,

      Thanks for the comment. I did consider that, based in large part on Karen Gregory’s thoughts on the matter:

      However, one of my concerns, and maybe this is picking a really small nit, is that “adjunct” is often short for “adjunct professor.” And when we casually shorten it to “adjunct” while simultaneously casually shortening “assistant professor,” “associate professor,” and “full professor” to “professor,” we are doing a linguistic disservice to contingent faculty. When we shorten “associate professor” (my current rank) to “professor,” we recognize that I am doing a certain kind of job, and my contract status is less relevant than the job I am doing. However, when we shorten “adjunct professor” to adjunct, we do the opposite, by emphasizing that the contract status should trump the job being done. It’s a minor point perhaps, but representative of one of the many ways that contingent faculty are defined by their contract status, and not the work that they do.

      The larger point, however, is something I think we both agree on: students *should* be made aware of this distinction, and they (and their parents) should be made aware of the very real labor dysfunctions in higher education. And I think we both agree that we need direct, concrete action.

      • When I was a master’s student and teaching my first classes, this was exactly the point that was made to us when we asked what we do if they call us “professor.” The title is not the job; it is fully appropriate to be referred to by the job you are doing.

      • Hans Castorp


        Thanks for the link. It’s indeed a bit of a double-bind (as your and Matthew’s replies make clear) between insisting on the title that describes the work performed or the title that describes the working conditions. My point of view is doubtless colored by the fact that I have rarely encountered the term “adjunct professor” per se; all the institutions I have crossed paths with have used some variation of “lecturer,” “visiting lecturer,” “adjunct lecturer,” with only VAP’s (“visiting assistant” for any civilians looking on) referred to as “professors,” whose workloads tend to be comparable, though they are not eligible for tenure.

        Nice to see someone putting their tenure to use for once. Look forward to joining you.

  2. Pingback: This Job Can Kill You. Literally.

  3. I would add a #4 aimed at those in doctoral programs or that have recently earned their Ph.D.s: don’t agree to adjunct for anything less than a living wage. For class reasons, there are many (including me) that are already in this position. We simply cannot afford to cobble together classes at a few thousand per course.

    My current institution is a prime example. Adjuncts in the English department make $550 per credit hour. Most have somewhere between 1 and 3 courses. My institution also has something called FTT (full-time temporary) status for instructors, who teach a 5-5 load but are given a salary and benefits. This year, the English department withdrew the FTT offers of at least two people, instead offering them courses as an adjunct, under the justification that they couldn’t afford to hire any FTTs this year. They then late-hired additional adjuncts to meet their freshman comp needs. It makes sense for the institution from a financial perspective but it is totally screwing over instructors. All of which is to say that these adjuncts should just opt-out.

    I’d like to see more efforts focused on encouraging doctoral students to explore the wide array of career options available to them. This is particularly relevant in fields where students explicitly discuss injustice and inequality. It’s depressing to see people who are so devoted to trying to correct inequalities for those they study then turn around and accept adjunct gigs at two or three universities under the bizarre logic that that’s better than nothing. I’d also like there to be greater concern, particularly by the faculty advising those students, that their graduates will make less money adjuncting than they could working in a Starbucks or Trader Joe’s.

    Sorry, that was a long-winded column. I just think that doctoral students need to take some responsibility for making their labor so cheaply available to universities and continuing to do so year after year. I’m not blaming Vojtko for what happened but, given such a clarion call to action, Ph.D. graduates that knowingly and willfully take such positions need to be smacked upside the head.

    • Brittany,

      Thanks for the comment.

      I honestly have no idea what would be best for PhDs, though I fully support any efforts at changing the nature of the market to force universities to pay all instructors a living wage. Of course, this would also include a living wage for graduate students. I was very lucky at UConn, where I was paid a living wage (supplemented by adjuncting), that allowed me relative comfort. Sure, I had roommates, and often money was tight, but I was able to make it work. However, I know that I was lucky, and that not all graduate students had it so well. (I also had health benefits, which was simply unheard of; no other school I applied to at that time offered health benefits.)

      Anyway, there needs to be a change, and there will be a revolution. I have no doubt that PhD students will be a part of that revolution.

      • I think what’s sad is that going from PhD student on an assistantship living just above the poverty line to post-PhD adjuncting either involves either a massive pay cut or a massive increase in workload. To continue on the English example above, PhD level students make $14,000 per year along with a waiver of tuition and fees for teaching two classes a semester. So, not counting the waiver, they make $7400 more than an adjunct for the same work. That’s just nuts and that’s what I think there needs to be more awareness of because I (have to) believe that if you put the numbers in people’s faces in that way, they’d realize that a crap job would pay better and be less work in many ways.

        But yes, I get your larger point about graduate student pay. I went to a PhD program at a university where all GAs are required to have their insurance paid by the university provided they have a half-time appointment. The post-2008 economic recession led some departments (ahem, sociology) to go to 0.25 appointments so that they could do the forced budget cuts and say they were funding all their students. We should all speak out against that kind of thing because it’s a crying shame.

  4. The point about adjunct faculty of any amount of years having to be re-hired (or not) each year or semester is such an important one. All too often, apologists for contingent workers in the academy compare this system to other work sectors where no one has lifetime security like tenure. But it’s just not a fair comparison. Freelancers are perhaps the only fair comparison to adjunct faculty. But even freelancers tend (from my limited experiences) to have more agency in their compensation.

    • One misunderstanding about tenure is that it is lifetime security. It is not. Though the rules change from university to university (or system to system), I’ll give my own situation as an example: I can be fired for cause, my position can be retrenched due to economic difficulties, and if I am found to not be upholding my end of my contract, my contract can be revoked. In my case, tenure is not “lifetime security,” at least not in the way it is often understood; it means that, unlike contingent faculty (or untenured faculty on the tenure stream), I do not have to be regularly rehired to my position.

  5. Pingback: Serious Male Authors and Contract Status | Phenomenal Anglo-Saxons

  6. Pingback: OUR SUNDAY LINKS - GUTS Canadian Feminist Magazine : GUTS Canadian Feminist Magazine

  7. Pingback: Serious Male Authors and Contract Status: On Gilmour and the Plight of the Adjunct - The Toronto Review of Books

  8. Pingback: The cold passed reluctantly from the earth, and the retiring fogs revealed an army stretched out on the hills, resting. | creativityinthecollegeclassroom

  9. Pingback: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope

  10. Pingback: We started dying before the snow, and like the snow, we continued to fall. | creativityinthecollegeclassroom

  11. Pingback: Whose woods these are I think I know. | creativityinthecollegeclassroom

  12. Pingback: “People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or the problems of modern society.” | creativityinthecollegeclassroom

  13. Pingback: “And we have just one world / But we live in different ones” | creativityinthecollegeclassroom

  14. Pingback: “Long live all the mountains we moved” | creativityinthecollegeclassroom

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s