The Buchtelite

Originally posted by

Ron

This was a bone-head move on Matt Williams' part. As an adjunct instructor, I feel his pain. I know what it's like to not have health insurance and to receive lesser pay for equal work. However, what you don't do is shoot yourself in the foot by resigning your position midway through.

Williams has screwed over his students, and opened himself up to a breach of contract lawsuit. At any rate, it was a pretty stupid thing to do. Getting frustrated and quitting your job midway through is not the thing to do to change the system.

Then what IS the thing to do to change the system? And what are YOU doing to change the system? Looks to me like Matt Williams is making more progress toward changing the system than anyone else at this university.

Originally posted by

Ron

This was a bone-head move on Matt Williams' part. As an adjunct instructor, I feel his pain. I know what it's like to not have health insurance and to receive lesser pay for equal work. However, what you don't do is shoot yourself in the foot by resigning your position midway through.

Williams has screwed over his students, and opened himself up to a breach of contract lawsuit. At any rate, it was a pretty stupid thing to do. Getting frustrated and quitting your job midway through is not the thing to do to change the system.

Nowhere in the "contract" that adjuncts are offered does it say that the adjunct is not free to quit at any point in the semester. Don't forget that the university is able to get rid of adjuncts at any time, for whatever reason, with no need to follow any sort of due process. Matthew Williams has just beat the university at its own game.

The adjunct's indentured servitude is only a metaphor, people. You are not in fact required to sign away your firsborn -- only your DNA.

Originally posted by

Ron

This was a bone-head move on Matt Williams' part. As an adjunct instructor, I feel his pain. I know what it's like to not have health insurance and to receive lesser pay for equal work. However, what you don't do is shoot yourself in the foot by resigning your position midway through.

Williams has screwed over his students, and opened himself up to a breach of contract lawsuit. At any rate, it was a pretty stupid thing to do. Getting frustrated and quitting your job midway through is not the thing to do to change the system.

Aw...go back to school and get your law degree, dummy! I a person can resign their commission as an officer in our Armed Forces they can sure as hell resign from something like the U. of A.! The man had the integrity to admit that he couldn't 'serve two masters', eh?!

Originally posted by

Damned if You Do, Damned If You Don't

I would respectfully, but strongly, disagree with my adjunct colleagues with respect to Mr. Williams's action. His is an act of courage and principle. As long as we continue to accept without comment or protest the appalling conditions in which we work, conditions will never change. What kind of example do we show our students by refusing to do anything about our unprofessional working conditions? If Ms. Jelinek wants to work for love, good for her, but I'll submit that's only good for her students if her selflessness is in the service of a worthy cause. Bloated administrative salaries and football stadiums are not a worthy cause -- talk about corporate welfare! I need to feed my family -- and my students need to see that teaching is the kind of honorable profession that deserves to be compensated in a way that allows people to feed their families.

What is ironic is that when Mr. Williams refused to resign, he was ridiculed for putting up with these conditions; now that he has resigned he's being criticized for abandoning his students. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen: the people you really should be criticizing are the Trustees, administrators, and TT faculty members who are shamelessly exploiting adjuncts AND students by creating this situation to begin with. It's unfortunate that adjuncts like Ron and Ms. Jelinek seem to misunderstand that attitudes like theirs only perpetuate the problem.

So...he must be doing something right, eh? Rock the boat, baby!

Originally posted by

Damned if You Do, Damned If You Don't

I would respectfully, but strongly, disagree with my adjunct colleagues with respect to Mr. Williams's action. His is an act of courage and principle. As long as we continue to accept without comment or protest the appalling conditions in which we work, conditions will never change. What kind of example do we show our students by refusing to do anything about our unprofessional working conditions? If Ms. Jelinek wants to work for love, good for her, but I'll submit that's only good for her students if her selflessness is in the service of a worthy cause. Bloated administrative salaries and football stadiums are not a worthy cause -- talk about corporate welfare! I need to feed my family -- and my students need to see that teaching is the kind of honorable profession that deserves to be compensated in a way that allows people to feed their families.

What is ironic is that when Mr. Williams refused to resign, he was ridiculed for putting up with these conditions; now that he has resigned he's being criticized for abandoning his students. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen: the people you really should be criticizing are the Trustees, administrators, and TT faculty members who are shamelessly exploiting adjuncts AND students by creating this situation to begin with. It's unfortunate that adjuncts like Ron and Ms. Jelinek seem to misunderstand that attitudes like theirs only perpetuate the problem.

I don't think it is my attitude that perpetuates this problem. I think that there is a professional way of being at work and in your job. I completely agree that the money is horrible and the system has to change, but I also know that there are other jobs that people can work if they aren't happy at the university. Nobody forces us into these situations. We ultimately chose it. We see every year what our wages are going to be and we choose to show up or not. While I do love my job, I never said I was selfless in doing it. I simply enjoy it, but I also enjoy my other jobs that allow me the luxury of teaching at the university. No one would ever think that an adjunct could take care of themselves and a family on what we make.

Originally posted by

Damned if You Do, Damned If You Don't

I would respectfully, but strongly, disagree with my adjunct colleagues with respect to Mr. Williams's action. His is an act of courage and principle. As long as we continue to accept without comment or protest the appalling conditions in which we work, conditions will never change. What kind of example do we show our students by refusing to do anything about our unprofessional working conditions? If Ms. Jelinek wants to work for love, good for her, but I'll submit that's only good for her students if her selflessness is in the service of a worthy cause. Bloated administrative salaries and football stadiums are not a worthy cause -- talk about corporate welfare! I need to feed my family -- and my students need to see that teaching is the kind of honorable profession that deserves to be compensated in a way that allows people to feed their families.

What is ironic is that when Mr. Williams refused to resign, he was ridiculed for putting up with these conditions; now that he has resigned he's being criticized for abandoning his students. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen: the people you really should be criticizing are the Trustees, administrators, and TT faculty members who are shamelessly exploiting adjuncts AND students by creating this situation to begin with. It's unfortunate that adjuncts like Ron and Ms. Jelinek seem to misunderstand that attitudes like theirs only perpetuate the problem.

Julie, you can't have it both ways. If you're happy in your job but acknowledge that the pay is horrible, then why criticize other adjuncts for doing what they think is right to rectify the situation? Maybe he also left because he got a better paying job or was actually losing money by teaching as an adjunct (it happens). That doesn't make him unprofessional; leaving is what professionals do when they are treated so poorly. If you think his leaving is so appalling and unfair to students, then insist that the university create conditions that give people incentive to stay without requiring them to make such unreasonable sacrifices. Teaching is a profession -- the university needs to start treating it like one.

Originally posted by

Damned if You Do, Damned If You Don't

I would respectfully, but strongly, disagree with my adjunct colleagues with respect to Mr. Williams's action. His is an act of courage and principle. As long as we continue to accept without comment or protest the appalling conditions in which we work, conditions will never change. What kind of example do we show our students by refusing to do anything about our unprofessional working conditions? If Ms. Jelinek wants to work for love, good for her, but I'll submit that's only good for her students if her selflessness is in the service of a worthy cause. Bloated administrative salaries and football stadiums are not a worthy cause -- talk about corporate welfare! I need to feed my family -- and my students need to see that teaching is the kind of honorable profession that deserves to be compensated in a way that allows people to feed their families.

What is ironic is that when Mr. Williams refused to resign, he was ridiculed for putting up with these conditions; now that he has resigned he's being criticized for abandoning his students. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen: the people you really should be criticizing are the Trustees, administrators, and TT faculty members who are shamelessly exploiting adjuncts AND students by creating this situation to begin with. It's unfortunate that adjuncts like Ron and Ms. Jelinek seem to misunderstand that attitudes like theirs only perpetuate the problem.

Isn't he still an adjunct somewhere else? So wouldn't he be helping along the adjunct problem there? Did he quit because of pay or DNA testing?

Originally posted by

Blake

He can do what he wants and that includes throwing in the towel. Where he earns my disrespect is when he blames his behavior on something(one) outside of himself. He chose to quit. He needs to own that and stop being a baby by claiming "the devil made me do it." And he is hardly rocking any boat by giving up and then whining to the Buchtelite. What an unprincipaled goof and coward.

If he wanted to rock the boat, he should have stayed on board and made UA miserable over the DNA policy. Instead, he rewards UA with his resignation while continuing his indentured servitude at Stark State School of Technology. He's no Jane Fonda even though he thinks he is.

Creating nobility where there is none is the mark of a fraud.

Actually, the Buchtelite was just the beginning. Apparently Williams has already notified CBS news and the ACLU, and that's probably just the beginning of the national attention this is going to get. Don't think this is over yet. Sounds to me like he is being a responsible citizen, which in this day and age is pretty noble. The U of A now has the distinction of being "the first employer in the nation to take such an extreme and potentially intrusive step." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/28/taking_liberties/entry5438012.shtml

Originally posted by

Blake

He can do what he wants and that includes throwing in the towel. Where he earns my disrespect is when he blames his behavior on something(one) outside of himself. He chose to quit. He needs to own that and stop being a baby by claiming "the devil made me do it." And he is hardly rocking any boat by giving up and then whining to the Buchtelite. What an unprincipaled goof and coward.

If he wanted to rock the boat, he should have stayed on board and made UA miserable over the DNA policy. Instead, he rewards UA with his resignation while continuing his indentured servitude at Stark State School of Technology. He's no Jane Fonda even though he thinks he is.

Creating nobility where there is none is the mark of a fraud.

and being a responsible citizen is not noble. It's the standard and is expected at the very least. To cannonize someone over it is just lowering the bar which goes on a lot in this country. This guy is no hero.

Originally posted by

Blake

He can do what he wants and that includes throwing in the towel. Where he earns my disrespect is when he blames his behavior on something(one) outside of himself. He chose to quit. He needs to own that and stop being a baby by claiming "the devil made me do it." And he is hardly rocking any boat by giving up and then whining to the Buchtelite. What an unprincipaled goof and coward.

If he wanted to rock the boat, he should have stayed on board and made UA miserable over the DNA policy. Instead, he rewards UA with his resignation while continuing his indentured servitude at Stark State School of Technology. He's no Jane Fonda even though he thinks he is.

Creating nobility where there is none is the mark of a fraud.

I agree -- don't "cannonize" him since he's done nothing wrong. The university's DNA policy, however, is "cannonizing" its employees -- as in "overkill." I wouldn't canonize him either, but I will give him lots of credit.

Originally posted by

Elle

I was with him on the poor treatment of part-time faculty .. I mean ..The Temps.

But quitting mid-semester is uncalled for. December is not far off.

How is taking a DNA sample, such as a hair clipping, any different than taking fingerprints as preschool thru high-school teachers must do?

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt, at the expense of students (that he supposedly cared about).

1) Quitting mid-term is a protest...a statement. Quitting at the end of the term is, well, not very newsworthy. Quitting at the end of the term is what thousands of adjuncts do every year when they realize that teaching as an adjunct is simply not economically feasible. Incidentally, you might have noticed the national stories that have referred to the "adjunct who resigned his position in protest, not the thousands of adjuncts who have resigned their positions at the end of the term.

2) If you do not see the difference between fingerprinting for criminal background check purposes and submitting a sample of DNA...well, then you have betrayed your ignorance. I do not mean this as an ad hominem attack. You are simply ignorant of the differences. I presume that you can read...so do a Google search. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES!

3) I do care about my students. They (and the many generations of students to come) will be better served by faculty who are not compelled to work several different jobs at multiple institutions just to make a living and pay for health insurance.

4) If is was a publicity stunt, it was a very well-executed one. And this is just the beginning. But this is no stunt. Would you have said the same thing about Rosa Parks? Sometimes you just have to "stand up" for what is right by violating the expectations and mores of others. Deal with it.

Anyone interested in joining this movement would be well served to visit http://www.newfacultymajority.info. New Faculty Majority is the National Coalition for Adjunct & Contingent Equity.

Originally posted by

Ron

When we sign our contracts with the university to teach on a part-time, semester-to-semester basis, we are agreeing to provide a service for a set amount of money. If we quit midway through, we have violated that contract.

His actions may cause widespread repercussions: imagine a freshman who, learning that she will have an adjunct instructor, decides to go to Stark State where she will also have adjunct instructors but at a substantially reduced cost? Our enrollment numbers would shrink, causing a shrinkage of jobs. What we must do is fight two battles: on the surface, we as adjuncts must do our jobs and see to it that our students receive the education they have paid tuition for. But behind the scenes, we must work with university administrators to change our working conditions.

If the Ohio senate changes the law, which is very likely, then the university will have no choice but to recognize an Adjunct Union on campus. The members of that union would vote on salary contracts. If the university wouldn't pay, then we would go on strike.

Individual action like Mr. Williams has taken is not the way to bring about beneficial change in a university setting, especially when it concerns only one person going on strike. Only through collective measures--banding together in mutual support and focused action-- can we improve the situation of adjunct employees.

Adjuncts at this university have been working for years, decades even, "behind the scenes" and "professionally" (code for "in a way that doesn't rock the boat") to try to get better pay and working conditions. The university officials smile their pseudo-sympathetic smiles, mouth empty platitudes about respecting us as professionals and go on their merry way, giving themselves more and more money and us less money and fewer and fewer rights and benefits.

Wise up. Until people start making life difficult for the university, and drawing attention to these conditions, as Matt Williams has done, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. And do you really think that the adjuncts at this school are brave enough to stand up for themselves? I hope the law changes, too. But I'm not optimistic that adjuncts here have enough self-respect to take the next step and actually unionize.

Originally posted by

Ron

When we sign our contracts with the university to teach on a part-time, semester-to-semester basis, we are agreeing to provide a service for a set amount of money. If we quit midway through, we have violated that contract.

His actions may cause widespread repercussions: imagine a freshman who, learning that she will have an adjunct instructor, decides to go to Stark State where she will also have adjunct instructors but at a substantially reduced cost? Our enrollment numbers would shrink, causing a shrinkage of jobs. What we must do is fight two battles: on the surface, we as adjuncts must do our jobs and see to it that our students receive the education they have paid tuition for. But behind the scenes, we must work with university administrators to change our working conditions.

If the Ohio senate changes the law, which is very likely, then the university will have no choice but to recognize an Adjunct Union on campus. The members of that union would vote on salary contracts. If the university wouldn't pay, then we would go on strike.

Individual action like Mr. Williams has taken is not the way to bring about beneficial change in a university setting, especially when it concerns only one person going on strike. Only through collective measures--banding together in mutual support and focused action-- can we improve the situation of adjunct employees.

It is unfortunate, indeed, that you have bought into the philosophy that we need to simply stay the course, do our jobs, and try to get things changed. I will tell you with absolute certainty that working conditions for adjuncts will not change for the better until universities across the country are called to account for their bad behavior.

I did not "go on strike" as you have intimated. I quit. Plain and simple...I made the decision that The University of Akron will not continue to benefit from my exploitation. And, now that I have quit, I can--with relative impunity--loudly proclaim for all who are willing to listen that the treatment of adjunct & contingent faculty is wrong, unsustainable, and impractical.

I suggest that you begin contacting Ohio's thirty-three State Senators. Poll them on where they stand vis-a-vis Ohio Senate Bill 129. Your opinion may change as to how likely it is that the law will be overturned (with respect to treatment of part-time faculty under Ohio collective bargaining). It is actions such as mine that bring attention to the matter; yet, it was not a publicity stunt, as some have intimated. This is a real problem, and we need people who are willing to stand up and be heard. We need to make it unbearable for the universities to maintain such policies. Students and parents need to become informed consumers of higher education services to the same extent as they are of coffee and tennis shoes.

Thucydides, in his "History of the Peloponnesian War" recorded the following: "But you and we should say what we really think and aim only at what is possible. For we alike both know that, into the topic of human affairs, the subject of justice arises only when the force of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can and the weak grant what they must."

Colleges and universities have demonstrated an unwillingness to change these conditions. We have argued, published, asked, begged, and waited. And to what effect? The status quo.

It is now time that the force of necessity equation be changed by the introduction of new variables. We can no longer afford to be weak. We must stand up, and we must actively fight these conditions, lest they persist ad infinitum.

The warrant that keeping students in the dark as to the use of adjunct faculty so that they don't leave and go to community colleges...so that you can keep your job is just ridiculous. Let them vote with their feet. Are you really that desperate to save your own job? It is the university's job to remain competitive, not the job of adjuncts to conceal the truth that makes them so.

Adjuncts should be shouting from every rooftop and every corner that what The University of Akron is doing is simply wrong. You keep holding your breath and hoping to accomplish something. It's my understanding that there are a couple of vacancies at present on Faculty Senate for part-time faculty. Go hang out there for awhile. In the meantime, I will be giving a press conference for 2,300 attendees at the National College Media Convention in Austin, Texas on Sunday morning. We'll let posterity be the judge as to which path should have been followed.

Originally posted by

Ron

When we sign our contracts with the university to teach on a part-time, semester-to-semester basis, we are agreeing to provide a service for a set amount of money. If we quit midway through, we have violated that contract.

His actions may cause widespread repercussions: imagine a freshman who, learning that she will have an adjunct instructor, decides to go to Stark State where she will also have adjunct instructors but at a substantially reduced cost? Our enrollment numbers would shrink, causing a shrinkage of jobs. What we must do is fight two battles: on the surface, we as adjuncts must do our jobs and see to it that our students receive the education they have paid tuition for. But behind the scenes, we must work with university administrators to change our working conditions.

If the Ohio senate changes the law, which is very likely, then the university will have no choice but to recognize an Adjunct Union on campus. The members of that union would vote on salary contracts. If the university wouldn't pay, then we would go on strike.

Individual action like Mr. Williams has taken is not the way to bring about beneficial change in a university setting, especially when it concerns only one person going on strike. Only through collective measures--banding together in mutual support and focused action-- can we improve the situation of adjunct employees.

Matt, I feel your pain. Really. I was a union leader (president of a graduate assistants union in Illinois) so I know from first-hand experience what it takes to 1) start the fight and 2) win the fight. It takes collective action, and an organized plan. Frankly put, you and I are both expendable. We are paid no less and no more than any other adjunct instructor in the state of Ohio. In my case, I do make more at the U of Akron than I do at a community college (where I also teach).
Yes, we need more money. Yes, we need health insurance and job security. But one person acting as a rogue and quitting in the middle of the semester is not going to do it.
Now if 100 adjuncts threatened to quit in the middle of the semester-- THEN we'd be getting somewhere. You have successfully drawn attention to the cause, but I don't think it's going to be the attention you desired. We must organize first and act second. You've done it backwards.
Best of luck in your press conference. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to get back to work.

Originally posted by

The Outcry is Getting Louder

U of Akron Requires DNA from Potential Employees; Feds Open Public Comment Period on Federal Law Protecting DNA
Category: Bioethics • Book Related • Genetic Privacy
Posted on: October 31, 2009 11:10 AM, by Rebecca Skloot (an award-winning science writer, and a contributing editor at Popular Science magazine; she's worked as a correspondent for the NPR show RadioLab, and PBS Nova ScienceNOW. Her writing appears in The New York Times Magazine, O: The Oprah Magazine, Discover and others.)

Inside Higher Ed just reported that an adjunct instructor at the University of Akron quit when he was told that he had to submit to DNA testing. "It's not enough that the university doesn't pay us a living wage, or provide us with health insurance," the instructor said, "but now they want to sacrifice the sanctity of our bodies. No." He was right to question their policy.

http://scienceblogs.com/culturedish/2009/10/u_of_akron_requires_dna_from_a.php?utm_source=selectfeed&utm_medium=rss

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/resume-cover-letter-dna-sample.html

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/01/akron-professor-resigns-over-new-policy-requiring-dna-samples-from-all-employees/