It is a wretched existence. It is poorly paid, both in absolute terms and relative to what similarly qualified colleagues receive for teaching the same courses and students; it offers little security; and the support system available to tenure-stream university faculty is not available to them. The very term generally used to refer to this group seems to cast it as abject and other. I will not even write its name.
The miserable circumstances of non-tenure-stream university faculty are far from a secret. On the contrary, they are well known, often discussed — both by those who live these forlorn lives and those who employ them — and are endured by as many as 20 per cent of UBC’s Faculty Association members.
Why would this be so? Why are non-tenure-stream faculty dealt this hand, and why do well qualified, knowledge-rich individuals — many of whom hold a PhD or are similarly experienced or certified — put up with it?
As I am one of these non-tenure-stream people I thought I would take up the question in hopes of moving this important issue out of the shadows so that those who have the power — such as department heads — may set to rethinking the relationship they have with the faculty association members who teach alongside them. It may also push those who are now department heads, directors or who have status elsewhere in the hierarchy, but who previously came from the contract ranks, to remember, and to think this aspect of university life with some urgency.
Why do we put up with it? Many of us begin our careers with different expectations, so it often takes some time for the penny to drop and the realisation to dawn that it may not be a temporary thing, this life without security, respect or a living wage — in many cases less than $15,000 a year. Often by the time that happens we already have a large investment in teaching alongside the time invested in earning the formal qualifications required. By the time the prospect of a lifetime of scrambling to make money from other sources has come clearly into view, a decade or more may have been lost and with it the opportunity to pursue other options or make other career choices. Many hope that a tenure-stream job may come their way, as happened for earlier generations, but instead they find that the longer they teach and gain experience in the system, the more remote the chances of a tenure-stream job become.
What are we to make of university departments that take it upon themselves to hold society up for ethical evaluation and make calls for social justice, while at the same time acquiescing in the maintenance of a second-class citizenry within their own institution who are nevertheless expected, under circumstances vastly different from those of the fully enfranchised citizenry, to cultivate a research profile and seek the grants without which such research is almost impossible?
Why are non-tenure-stream faculty members seen as so very different from their tenure-stream colleagues and paid so much less for their teaching time, given their similar formal qualifications and teaching tasks? With regard to pay equity, there may be no other sector where the disparity between like-qualified people is greater. There are, of course, many ways in which you can take into consideration different responsibilities and time commitments to come up with different rates of pay, but all things considered it can be argued that, even conservatively calculated, the rate for the majority of non-tenure-stream university teachers, on average, is something like half that of their tenure-stream counterparts.
Responsibility for this situation cannot be laid at the feet of the university administration alone. While the talk is of tight budgets, departments and faculties do have some ability to redress inequities, illustrated by the fact that there are cases where some non-tenure-stream faculty are paid significantly more than others and at rates above the stipulated minimum rate.
Nor is the disquiet limited to financial considerations. One of the most disheartening realities faced by non-tenure-stream faculty is the way they are made to feel a lesser part of the university’s endeavour. The talk is both of small slights and grand exclusions, and of how this undervaluing makes significant dents in the self-esteem of non-tenure-stream faculty and stunts their performance. They might be left out of the Faculty and Administration Directory, or have no title appended when they are included; or at department functions find they are the only group not to get printed name tags, or discover that their publications have not been listed in department literature. The Faculty Association has worked hard on aspects of these inequities since all non-tenure-stream faculty were drawn into its membership, winning some monies for non-tenure-stream professional development and some appointment security, among other things, but these redresses should be seen as only the beginning and the fight should not be left to the Faculty Association alone.
If the university’s Trek 2000 vision statement, which places a great deal of emphasis on the importance of the teaching and learning environment in undergraduate programmes, is to become a reality, then all who contribute to this environment must be evaluated according to the same procedures. As non-tenure-stream faculty account for a significant percentage of those who conduct the university’s teaching, their lives must be transformed and their depressing circumstances changed to enable them to continue alongside their colleagues and, in the words of the Trek 2000 statement on learning, “to provide a learning environment that will inspire and enable individuals to grow intellectually, recognise their social responsibilities, be prepared to live and work in a global environment, and achieve personal fulfilment.”
© S Fuller 2001