Full Time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty

BP: get answers to these questions as a first step toward identifying the interests and concerns of those faculty members we were elected to represent. It’s also important to reiterate that full-time, non-tenure track faculty hold a number of different types of appointments: some just for a year, with no expectation of renewal; others for three years with no renewal beyond that; and a good number for a year, but with the expectation that they’ll be renewed indefinitely. One of the challenges of representing all these people on the Faculty Congress is that there are differences among us, and not only in how long we’ve been here or expect to be here, but in what we’re empowered to do and whether we work for departments or primarily for “programs” and “centers” without any tenure lines. But there are some commonalities: generally speaking, we make less money than full-time, tenure-track faculty, though the non-tenure track faculty often teach more classes and sometimes do as much or even more research and publishing; and we don’t enjoy the same benefits as full-time, tenure-track faculty, for example sabbatical.

JM: The role full-time, non-tenure track faculty who work for departments have in decision-making and committees appears to vary widely from one department to the next. Some of us can vote for the chairperson and on hiring decisions; others can’t.

FAC: At the May 4 meeting, the full-time, non-tenure track faculty had over an hour of discussion. What issues are foremost on the minds of your colleagues?

JM: One of the common themes running through our discussion was the sense that full-time, non-tenure track faculty are invisible. BP: For this reason, with the help of the VPAA’s office, we’ve set about getting a better sense of who we are. Are our numbers growing, or have they been more or less constant over the years? Are we across all colleges, or clustered in a few? Do we teach mostly introductory courses, or do some of us have jobs focused on research? How many of us have partly administrative roles? It was agreed at our meeting that we need answers to these questions as a first step toward identifying our common interests and concerns.

JM: The other set of questions that we discussed concerned whether there are college-wide, or university-wide, policies pertaining to us, or whether each of us individually negotiates his or her rights and responsibilities. There are apparently significant discrepancies in our salary and retirement benefits; there doesn’t appear to be any policy in place for “steps” in benefits (for example, salary or sabbatical) after a set number of years of service; and as I said already, while some departments allow full-time, non-tenure track faculty to vote on appointments and for the chairperson, others don’t.

FAC: What issues do you intend to raise in this coming year?

BP: As politicians now like to say, Jim and I have agreed that we need to go on a “listening tour” before setting out just what we want done. And we also need to be realistic—and to make it clear that we’re not seeking to make trouble. There are, as I’ve indicated, some issues of justice that call for consideration; but probably what’s most important to begin with is that full-time, non-tenure track people escape from invisibility. A number of people exclaimed at our meeting things like, “I didn’t know you’re non-tenure track!” There was surprise at who is, and at how many of us there are. This needs to change.

JM: Our goal is to identify and then give voice to the issues and concerns that face full-time, non-tenure track faculty members. We hope doing this will serve to integrate these faculty more fully into the VU community, and to have their contribution to this great university recognized.

FAC: Bernard, you helped draft the amendment to add these two seats. What distinctive perspectives do you think your non-tenure track colleagues can bring to the Congress?

BP: I had two goals in drafting the amendments: first, to give faculty with this type of position a voice in matters pertaining to the whole university and of interest to all faculty; and second, to help identify and speak for the interests and concerns distinct to full-time, non-tenure track faculty. At bottom, I was interested in finding a way for us to be and feel invested in the future of the university. A lot of us have been here a while already, or plan to be here a while, and we care about the place deeply. I think we can remind the university of some of its own commitments: to justice, yes, but also to undergraduate teaching. From what Jim and I have learned so far, we know that a lot of us teach introductory classes, and not only love this kind of teaching, but think that it’s critical to the university’s mission. We’ll bring this perspective, among others I’m sure, to the Congress.

JM: Let me add that we hope to build on our initial, productive exchange last May with the non-tenure track faculty who participated in the elections when we meet again later this fall. In the meantime, we encourage our colleagues to share their views with us directly by email. Also don’t forget to check out the discussion board that’s been developed to facilitate communication between and among all of us.

FAC: Jim and Bernard, thank you for your thoughts. The Faculty Congress is excited to have you on board, and we look forward to discussing your ideas.