In 2005, colleges and universities employed more than 675,000 fulltime faculty members or full-time equivalents. In the same year, America’s colleges and universities employed more than 190,000 individuals classified by the federal government as “executive, administrative and managerial employees.” Another 566,405 college and university employees were classified as “other professional.” This category includes IT specialists, counselors, auditors, accountants, admissions officers, development officers, alumni relations officials, human resources staffers, editors and writers for school publications, attorneys, and a slew of others. These “other professionals” are not administrators, but they work for the administration and serve as its arms, legs, eyes, ears, and mouthpieces.
Salary Surveys conducted by The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) for 2012-2013
Tenured/Tenure-track faculty salaries by discipline
184,924 surveys, 31 disciplines, 794 institutions
Senior-level administrators salaries by job title
55,017 surveys, 190 positions (director and above), 1,251 institutions
Mid-level administrators salaries by job title
182,482 surveys, 275 positions, 1,109 institutions
Non-tenure-track teaching and research faculty salaries
nine disiplines, 794 institutions
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Every year, hosts of administrators and staffers are added to college and university payrolls, even as schools claim to be battling budget crises that are forcing them to reduce the size of their full-time faculties.
Before they employed an army of professional staffers, administrators were forced to rely on the cooperation of the faculty to carry out tasks ranging from admissions to planning.
The number of administrators and staffers on university campuses has increased so rapidly in recent years that often there is not enough work to keep all of them busy. To fill their time, administrators engage in a number of make-work activities.
A tiny number of schools took the opportunity to confront years of administrative and staff bloat and moved to cut costs by shedding unneeded administrators and their brigades of staffers.
The very first statement of academic freedom in the United States was made in 1915. AAUP’s General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure placed the notion of academic freedom squarely on the ground that the professoriate ought to regulate itself:“The relationship between University trustees and members of the University faculties is not in any sense that of employer and an employee. For once appointed, the scholar has professional functions to perform in which the appointing authorities have neither competency nor moral right to intervene. The responsibility of the University teacher is primarily to the public itself and to the judgment of his own profession. And while with respect to certain external conditions of his vocation, he accepts the responsibility to the authorities of the institution in which he serves and the essentials of his professional activity, his duty is to the wider public to which the institution itself is morally amenable.” That passage contains the root idea of academic freedom. It is the notion that the professoriate is a profession that in the conduct of its professional obligations is answerable primarily to itself. Neither the owners of proprietary universities nor the public, who owned state universities, could presume to judge the professional work of professors. It follows popularity or unpopularity is an irrelevant and pernicious criterion for the judgment of professional work.
Academic freedom is thus a claim to professional self-regulation. In almost every other profession this claim has been in recent years severely undermined. Certainly the claims of lawyers and for doctors to regulate themselves is now highly attenuated,and in light of recent scandals the same may be happening to the clergy. The one place where the idea of professional self-regulation continues to carry conviction is the context of academic freedom. This might be because the public understands that we need this academic freedom in order to do what they want us to do. Or it might be because the public doesn’t really care what we do.
Notice that the idea of professional self-regulation is at its base incompatible with any simple idea of freedom of expression. The university is an institution that in fact exists to regulate speech. We evaluate and sanction our colleagues all the time based upon what we think about the quality of their speech. We award tenure to those who speak well,and we deny tenure to those whose work we deem inadequate. We evaluate the writings of potential hires and the research articulated in grant proposals.We couldn’t run a university if we didn’t do these things. Notice distinct this idea of a university is from the concept of the free public that underwrites the First Amendment. I cannot penalize the New York Times for misunderstanding the distinction between Astronomy and Astrology,but I can sanction an Astronomy professor that fails to make distinction. That is because the personal right to freedom of speech is not applicable to the context of the university.
Academic freedom sits at the intersection of two forms of social control. One is institutional. The University treats professors as employees in many ways. It requires that professors teach classes,that they conduct themselves according to rules and regulations, and so forth. In return the university pays our salaries and fulfills its obligations to us as an employer. The second is professional. As professors we are answerable to our peers. The complexity of academic freedom lies in the fact that it must live at the intersection of these two forms of control. That is one reason why it is so very tempting to conceptualize academic freedom as entirely resting on the institutional mission of the university, because that mission also lies the precise point of intersection between the institutional and professional control.The professor has academic freedom to serve the purposes of the university, which is to say that the managerial prerogatives of the university are conceived as limited by these purposes, and that the professional norms of the scholar, by which the professor is also judged, are conceived as formulated by reference to these purposes. Our own statements in the APM [not sure whose] are quite clear about how academic freedom is to be justified and explained in terms of the institutional purpose of the university. Section 5 states:“The University exists for the sake of carrying out certain functions ... It follows that the individual members of the faculty and the individual departments of the university are the servants of those ideal ends for the sake of which the university exists, such as the advancement of learning, the spread of knowledge, and the cultivation of capacities for intelligent and significant living.”
In short, academic freedom, rather than being a philosophical or moral imperative, is a piece of policy that makes practical sense in the context of the specific task academics are charged to perform. It follows that the scope of academic freedom is determined first by specifying what that task is and then by figuring out what degree of latitude those who are engaged in it require in order to do their jobs.
since the faculty has primary responsibility for the teaching and research done in the institution, the faculty's voice on matters having to do with teaching and research... Since such decisions as those involving choice of method of instruction, subject matter to be taught, policies for admitting students, standards of student competence in a discipline, the maintenance of a suitable environment for learning, and standards of faculty competence bear directly on the teaching and research conducted in the institution, the faculty should have primary authority over decisions about such matters - that is, the administration should "concur with the faculty judgment except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail."
Other decisions bear less directly on the teaching and research conducted in the institution; these include, for instance, decisions about the institution's long-range objectives, its physical and fiscal resources, the distribution of its funds among its various divisions, and the selection of its president. But these decisions plainly can have a powerful impact on the institution's teaching and research, and the Statement on Government declares that the decision-making process must include the faculty, and that its voice on these matters must be accorded great respect.
the 1966 Statement derivest he weight of the faculty's voice on an issue- that is, the degree to which the faculty's voice should be authoritative on the issue- from the relative directness with which the issue bears on the faculty's exercise of its various
the allocation to the faculty, through appropriate governance processes and structures, of authority over faculty status and other basic academic matters can be seen to be necessary for the protection of academic freedom. It is the faculty- not trustees or administrators - who have the experience needed for assessing whether an instance of faculty speech constitutes a breach of a central principle of academic morality, and who have the expertise to form judgments of faculty competence or incompetence
Even with a sound governance system in place and with a faculty active in self-government and operating under rules and regulations protective of academic freedom, dysfunctions that undermine academic freedom may still occur: subtle (or not so subtle) bullying on the part of the faculty itself, a covertly enforced isolation, a disinclination to respect the views of the off-beat and cranky among its members. That is to say, given appropriate formal protections, such incivilities may not issue in clear-cut violations of academic freedom, but a faculty member's academic freedom may nevertheless be chilled
The third reason is the most important in the present context allocation of authority to the faculty in the areas of its responsibility is a necessary condition for the protection of academic freedom within the institution. The protection of free expression takes many forms, but the issue emerges most clearly in the case of authority over faculty status....
It is in light of these requirements that the allocation to the faculty, through appropriate governance processes and structures, of authority over faculty status and other basica academic matters can be seen to be necessary for the protection of academic freedom. It is the faculty- not trustees or administrators - who have the experience needed for assessing whether an instance of faculty speech constitutes a breach of a central principle of academic morality,and who have the expertise to form judgments of faculty competence r incompetence. As AAUP case reports have shown, to the extent that decisions on such matters are not in the hands of the faculty, there is a potential for, and at times the actuality of, administrative imposition of penalties on improper grounds.
And I think you've repeatedly ignored the fact that the faculty are now half women while the administration is still largely male.
sockpuppy, if I recall correctly, that 2006 study and the 38% number was only for TT professors, not of adjuncts.
Since the current governance of the university is the cause of proliferation of ajuncts (as I argued in my previous comment) it is administrators who are keeping all those women working in precarious jobs where they can have no share of faculty governance.
What we need to do is convert qualified or fire every adjunct: if they're not good enough to teach college courses at the TT level, fire them. Otherwise, convert them.
And anyway, faculty don't have authority over hiring and promotion decisions. That's the point!
Umm, are you an adjunct? If not, why would you be fired?
But that's not what we usually mean by adjuncts
« Older Progressbar... | What happens when we stop thin... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt