We Got It Done. What's Next

Why the Resolution’s Passage Was Important

At the most AFT National Convention a resolution calling for AFT to create model legislation and language to support due process rights for contingent faculty was passed by unanimous vote.

The significance of this vote is that it represents a potential game change in the approach to the issue of precarity and inequity in the treatment of contingent faculty.

While unequal pay, lack of access to benefits, inclusion in professional development and participatory governance, and job security are well recognized and acknowledged issues regarding contingent faculty—the very divide which separates contingent from full-time tenure track faculty is rarely addressed as an issue it itself.

In fact, the simple existence of contingent faculty has been seen as the problem, perhaps best witnessed by the long-called for 72/25 solution—that if somehow, 75% percent of all classes taught in higher ed were done by full-time faculty, with the remaining 25% percent covered by contingent faculty (who were paid equally and given benefits proportionate to load) this would solve the “crisis of contingency.”

In the 37 years since this “advised” approach was put into California law in 1989, the California Community College System devolved to a near-inverse 70/30 contingent to full-time tenure track ratio in 2000, and has remained roughly at this level for a quarter of a century.

The reasons this approach has not worked are several. One, the existence of a low paid academic workforce that can be dismissed or terminated with impunity is a financial incentive for those resistant to the proper funding of high ed. Secondly, the division of faculty into full-time versus contingent faculty often further divided into other tiers of precarity allows management to isolate or pick and choose an “elite” full-time tenure track class and play it against contingent faculty.

The key issue here is tenure, and more importantly what tenure is.  First off, tenure is not defined by federal law, but rather is a concept shaped state by state, referring to state laws covering due process ensuring faculty cannot be dismissed without “just cause.”

When one refers to contingent faculty lacking the protection of tenure, what they are really saying is that contingent faculty, unless locally negotiated or specifically referenced in state law, lack due process.

Gaining true due process for contingent faculty would effectively begin a process of dissolving this distinction. Ending this distinction, in addition to the already largely stated calls for pay and benefit inequity would move faculty closer together, and could in time lead to the establishment of a single-hiring process.

With that, the concept of contingency as an academic job class ends, and the shift to a single, or One Faculty model begins.

This is not to say that there wouldn’t be future divisions between academic positions on the basis of research demands or administrative duties, but that by and large, faculty would have the same basic responsibilities, both and outside the classroom proportionate to load.

There are certainly questions regarding how this would change faculty dynamics, and I will address them in a later post—the point here is to understand what securing due process for contingent faculty would mean.

Before going further, it is important to distinguish due process from academic freedom. At the AFT convention, I was approached on several occasions to include academic freedom in the resolution language, to which I refused.

There are several reasons for this.

First, it has been my experience as a contingent activist that when issues involving all faculty on the on hand, and then contingent faculty in particular are brought to the fore, the cause of all faculty (often mostly meaning full-time tenure track faculty) are taken up first, followed by contingent faculty if our cause is taken up at all.

Second, the cause of academic freedom has been widely supported, and in fact, I believe that all higher ed faculty CBA’s should include language from the AAUP’s 1940 definition of academic freedom.  Further, such language should be made a part of state ed codes. The solution, to the problem of academic freedom is clear—people need to organize, advocate, and legislate.

Third, academic freedom is largely nothing more than lip service for contingent faculty who lack due process.  There are in fact CBA’s in California Community Colleges which include the 1940 AAUP academic freedom language while California Ed Code reads that a governing board may terminate the employment of a community college contingent faculty member without cause “by the of the week.”

 In this respect, academic freedom is a privilege of the tenured class—only providing due process to contingent faculty ensures that academic freedom can truly apply to all faculty.

Moving Forward

A unanimous vote on a resolution by a national body is not to be taken lightly, but let’s be clear here—a resolution is more or less just a promise, and a promise that model language and legislation will be created and disseminated.  In the second after the passage of the resolution AFT President Randi Weingarten, stated a desire to make sure such language gets out to every single state.  It will be important to regularly remind AFT leadership of this.  There is, as always, a lot going on, but we can’t let this issue get sidetracked.

To be clear though, Randi and AFT Higher Ed have been very supportive of the Caucus’s resolutions in the past, as in her letter to Secretary of Labor Michael Cardona calling for a study of contingent faculty working conditions in response to a AFT-ACC Caucus supported resolution in 2022.

I think it’s important for all of us to keep in mind what is happening to higher ed, and the urgency of the due process issue.

Academic freedom is under attack, but how can it truly be defended when it is denied to contingent faculty who comprise roughly 70% of all US faculty? The shrinking numbers of tenure track faculty have weakened support for academic freedom. The threat to academic freedom, as I stated in arguing the resolution, is not one tied simply to speaking out current controversial issues, but the ability to speak out and instruct on matters of the climate, science, and the public interest, key not simply to democracy, but a functioning society.

Securing due process for contingent faculty is about saving higher ed, and the crisis of contingency has been both a cause and symptom of its devolution and fragility.

This message needs to be carried and conveyed by all of us.  Rank and file faculty, both contingent and full-time tenure track, need to understand the importance of due process for contingent faculty and its role it saving higher ed.

And this won’t be easy—admin will fight us, and at times politicians too.  Contingent faculty due process needs to become a part of local unit bargaining discussions and state legislative action, and the effort will need to be sustained.  At times we may fail, but must remain resilient, and at times we may get only a part of what we’re fighting for, but this cannot stop our resolve.

In Solidarity,

Geoff Johnson

AFT-ACC Caucus President