Starbuckaroo & #adjunct comment blitzing too

Skeptical all-agog-ness at news of Starbuck's (not quite) free higher ed degree offer abounds on adjunct enclaves around the tubz. On the adj-l list, which had been quiet until Anna Spiro posted a link to the NYT Starbucks OpEd. Conversation picked up. Ana Fores posted,

I wrote a letter, which was published, and I encouraged folks on Adjunct Justice to join me & write in, to give their own point of view. I am sure some heeded the call, but I don't know who.  

If we want to have our voices heard, we need to do so in the mainstream media, especially in papers such as the New York Times with its huge readership. Write in your comment. I think they may still be taking them!

Quick Note: new thread, whatever

You are cordially invited to visit & comment on our (NFM's) new blog thread just for comments. Like the proverbial floating crap game, posts move down as new ones are posted, but I'll try to remember to re-stick the post back to the top of the page every now and again while considering other options.  For now though, here it is: just comment under the identity of your choice. Anonymity guaranteed and always an option.

 

What is it? An experiment, a work in progress, whatever you choose to make of it. Go alone with me here. Humor me. I'm experimenting so want to start out open ended and see where it takes us.  Will it be the (hand or other) writing on the wall, another iteration of  _____ (fill in the blank with preferred designation) narratives or something else altogether? Call it the whatever thread. Should more specific guidelines become necessary, we can set them together.

Suggestions invited, questions answered, friends and strangers alike welcomed,  trolls ejected. 

Names 101, the catalog description + addenda

Behind and between, as usual. I'll start with a few words about the title. Names 101 is a series or regular feature (depending on its endurance level and mine). Since the series actually started with the guest post, "Administrative Term Adjunct is a Falsehood" by Tom Paine #2, the introduction is something of an afterthought. I also have a guest post by New Faculty Secretary Board Member and Secretary Anne Wiegard (English, SUNY Cortland) in drafts but ready to roll, plus a few more "promised." A series introduction is overdue. With it comes an invitation to comment or contribute a guest post (email to vanessa.vaile@newfacultymajority.info)

Any faculty member, even among the Tenured and Tracked clans, and, one would hope, most other staff and administrators are no doubt aware that what to call NTT faculty (researchers and librarians included) can be a thorny topic calling forth strong reactions. Some find the adjunct designation "highly offensive." Others don't mind as long as you don't call them adjuncts (hinting at hidden tier lines within the NTT tier). Still others could care less and consider the fuss a bit much. As one commented, "like pilots arguing in the cockpit while the airplane is crashing." There is also a contingent, if one can use the term, who feel that calling themselves Adjunct is an act of defiance. If that weren't enough, unions, professional associations, administrators, Department of Labor, faculty handbook job descriptions, keywords and standard online search terms can't agree either. Maybe we need a whole new, baggage free name

Both the Contingent Academics List and the New Faculty Majority  ~ full name ~ Coalition of Adjunct and Contingent Faculty try to cover both bases, give a nod to each. Periodically, the subject will come up on list, although it hasn't for a while. Let's take the initiative: describe, explain and name ourselves.

This came in today's rss feeds: Evolution or Revolution, from Ray Watkins' Writing in the Wild. 


Wow! Is this how it feels to be "historical"? Beats being lambasted by a cranky dean. Now head on over to Program for Change and join the conversation with those who have already posted comments. You don't have to agree with us either. If you don't, we want to hear about it. You are welcome to post comments under pseudonym if necessary or preferred. Come be historical with us. We're putting the ball in play but can't carry it alone.

In 25 or 50 years, when someone or other, most likely a graduate student, writes a history of U.S. Higher Education in our time, the New Faculty Majority “Program for Change: 2010-2030” will have to play a key role. I don’t think it matters if the particulars of the program are achieved or not; its historical importance is its attempt to imagine a new employment system in U.S. higher education using a model developed largely in California and Canada. I think that it’s broad enough to be useful to almost anyone interested in reforming higher education. It’s our, “What is to be Done.”

OK, maybe it’s only our “Port Huron Statement.” Hopefully, in articulating this vision, the NFM has signaled the nadir of the current system. I think the proposed system makes a lot of sense; it touches on all of the key problems. 

Then head over to Writing in the Wild and tell Ray "thank you" from us (again). Please note changes here too. Just to remind you, I've added a screenshot thumbnail + link to the sidebar, top right. Other changes: a page with Maria's letter about the Program; news feed on the top of the page; improved blogroll. 


Yes, it's been slow here, and, no, the dog didn't eat my keyboard. I've been busy herding poets, but that's over for the season. I'll be blogging here more diligently. 

Program for Change

OK everybody... this is important. WE NEED FEEDBACK. Get a move on and haul it on over to the Program for Change site. Read the letter about the plan, read plan or as much of it as you can manage at one sitting ~ then post comments to let us know what you think of the plan. Tell us what you'd like to see added, taken off, changed, clarified, made more or less tougher, and so on.

"Program for Change: 2010-2030" | A Discussion Covened by NFM

PS I mean NOW, not next week or after you finish grading your first set of fall semester papers