To the Editors,

Recently, a lot of attention has been given to the adjunct faculty who lost their jobs at the university. But my guess is that many people don't know the difference between "adjunct" faculty and regular faculty, and that the difference reflects a disturbing reality of discrimination in today's higher education.

Adjunct faculty are part time employees who are a growing part of college teaching faculty throughout the U.S. as well as at UM. It is estimated that adjuncts comprised about 30% of UM faculty before the recent lay-offs. If UM adjuncts are employed less than half time, they do not receive the contractual benefits of full time faculty. This means that they receive no medical insurance, no pension plan, no rights of tenure, no regulated wages, no union protection, and no rights to participate in departmental policy. They are technically hired on a term by term basis, and can be dismissed without cause at the end of each teaching term.

Some adjuncts have worked under these conditions for more than ten years on wages six or seven times less than administrators who often do little or no teaching. And in contrast to the increasing numbers of "assistant," "associate," and "vice-presidential" positions among the administrative personnel, adjunct faculty reflects the gradual diminishment of full time teaching positions. And adjunct faculty members are hired not only from off campus. There has been a disturbing trend to employ graduate students as adjuncts during the course of their studies. This is different from their use as teaching assistants which is a supervised form of graduate training. Hiring students as adjunct teachers increases the possibility of the University being more arbitrary about their wages and working conditions than for adjunct faculty who have finished their education.

The absence of consistent employment procedures and regulations for adjunct faculty promotes an unhealthy mixture of exploitation and favoritism on campus since a few adjuncts do quite well when favored by their superiors. But whether favored or exploited, adjunct faculty are subject to an arbitrariness that full time, union protected faculty would for themselves quickly reject as unfair, unprofessional, and discriminatory.

And where then does the University Teachers Union, the advocate for democracy in education, stand in face of this academic version of apartheid? Well, that's anyone's guess, but they reportedly changed their name from "union" to "association" which might explain a lot.

The adjunct system has been seductively attractive to many full time faculty and administrators alike. The system not only saves money, but also eliminates the expense and time of lengthy job advertising and faculty interviews. Only recently did UM finally decide to require regular evaluations of adjunct teaching. In short, adjuncts are cheap labor that requires a minimum of administrative oversight. When students protested the loss of their adjunct teachers, they failed to recognize that the administrative advantage of having adjuncts in the first place is that they can be dismissed at will. This leaves the full time faculty with the illusion that their positions are permanent and secure indeed of a higher order, so there will be little complaint from them.

It will take more than money from the legislature to restore academic democracy at UM, but that is, nonetheless, the first step. If the state persists in its inadequate funding, the erosion of Montana higher education that is reflected in the treatment of adjunct faculty will only get worse. And the ultimate victims, of course, are the students.

James Todd
Retired Professor of Art and Humanities and member of the first UTU collective bargaining team at UM in 1977.