Sunday, July 24, 2016

Some Moral Issues in Determining Faculty Salaries


Herewith a small excerpt from my 1999 book, The Moral Dimensions of Academic Administration1. It was written at the request of Steven M. Cahn, the editor of the series, Issues in Academic Ethics. I accepted the charge before finding out that nothing had been written on the subject of the ethics of academic administration and found myself inventing the subject as I went along. The piece below is from the section entitled “Some Moral Dimensions of the Determination of Faculty Salaries,” specifically from pp 107-108. It is unfortunately prescient regarding the use of nonregular faculty, a very much larger issue today even than it was in the late nineties of the last century.

   The difference in salaries that tend to be paid to regular (tenure track) faculty and to various types of nonregular instructors are considerable. . . . And it is to save money that many nonregular faculty are employed. Within limits, appropriately so, since for certain teaching roles the use of nonregular faculty is compatible with the effective achievement of institutional goals. . . . [But] it is to save money that many of the nonregular faculty are employed. . . . [However,] it is not necessarily right to do what the market permits. . . .
   A second comment pertains to those nonregular faculty members who are teaching full time. One might have clever debates about just what constitutes a full-time job, but in the end it comes down to the hours a competent, conscientious person is at work—in class, conferring with students, preparing for class, grading tests and papers. When those hours add up to eight and more, when it becomes less and less plausible that someone could, in an ongoing way, take on additional work, that measure has been reached. And when that happens, the compensation must be high enough to amount to a living wage—modest, perhaps, but sufficient for a reasonable living, as that is measured by salaries elsewhere in the community.
   A reply might be made that even when full time, these nonregular faculty positions are only temporary and should  thus not be compared with normal jobs  that one has and keeps to earn one’s livelihood. Such a response stands a strong chance of being sophistical. In many cases, these nonregular jobs are temporary solely because the institution will commit itself only for a year at a time. Temporary by fiat, in other words, and often merely de jure, since many people are appointed to do the same work year after year. . . . Thus, the classification of these positions as temporary is a legalism that does not itself justify reduced compensation.
   There is thus a further point to be made, in addition to the matter of paying a living wage. IHEs [Institutions of Higher Education] have an obligation to make the lives of many of their nonregular faculty more predictable and secure. Since institutions can foresee many of their needs, at least for a few years, and are thus able to provide security for a sizeable fraction of their nonregular faculty by issuing multiyear contracts, they ought to do so. In several ways, to sum up, many nonregular faculty members are treated inequitably by the institutions that engage them And it is precisely because they are variously exploited that their employment is economically so advantageous that their numbers have become so large. Accordingly, were one to follow more closely the dictates of morality, the economic benefits would decrease and this cadre would undoubtedly shrink. This would leave IHEs with a healthier mix of regular and nonregular faculty.
____________________________
1https://www.amazon.com/Dimensions-Academic-Administration-Issues-Ethics/dp/0847690970

   







No comments:

Post a Comment