I see the Academe piece as saying, “Yes, it is wrong; we are conplicit and need to do something. Let’s focus on far-reaching goals and tenure instead of the immediate needs of adjuncts.”
Meanwhile, adjuncts are being driven into increasing poverty and only collective bargaining and action seems to improve working conditions and make things better now. The conversion theory seems very management friendly to me, and it will just add to increased workload for tenured faculty, at which point they too will need collective bargaining because tenure is not legally-binding by itself.
Yesterday, former MLA President (among other titles) Michael Bérubé posted a piece on the Academe blog that contributes to the ongoing (as he points out) discussion of the place of tenure-track/tenured (TT/T) faculty in the system that enables the exploitation of contingent faculty. Titled “Tenure-Track Responsibility and Adjunct Exploitation,” the piece picks up on Kevin Birmingham’s contention in his Truman Capote Award acceptance speech that TT/T faculty benefit from adjunct inequality even if we don’t intentionally create or cause it.
The responses to Birmingham’s and Bérubé’s pieces in substance is pretty much identical: NO I DON’T!!!!! (And before you react to this by assuming I’m talking about you individually, only if you’re one of hundreds I actually saw say this–that is, it’s a pretty common reaction.)
I’m not going to speak for Michael B, an ally with whom I sometimes disagree about details, but I think it’s worth…
View original post 161 more words