Diana Vallera is a Fine Artist and Photography Instructor at Columbia College of Chicago, and President of the Part-Time Faculty Union. In this essay based on a talk given last month at the Illinois AAUP meeting, Vallera analyzes Columbia College of Chicago (which has no connection to Columbia University), and the approach of the administration toward corporatization and shared governance.

By Diana Vallera

I would like to begin with a snapshot of Columbia College Chicago (“CCC”) from my perspective as a part-time faculty member and president of the part-time faculty union.

The essence of CCC’s mission is to “provide a comprehensive educational opportunity in the arts, communications, and public information within a context of enlightened liberal education.”

It is important to realize that CCC is not in a financial crisis. It has purchased new buildings and according to statements made by President Warrick Carter has a growing endowment and is in a strong and nimble financial condition.

From its inception, part-time faculty have been the faculty majority at CCC.
About 10 years ago we noticed changes taking place within the College as corporatization started to take hold, and we saw this:

–significant expansion of administration on all levels, including assistants, with high-paid salaries;
–an increasingly top-down system of management;
–an administration that seems most concerned about creating curriculum that helps guarantee higher retention rates and cost-saving measures;
–standardization of classes so that faculty have less choice in the design of syllabi and selection of texts;
–increases in classroom enrollment caps; and
–an overall decline in the quality of education.

The corporatization of Columbia College has resulted in a rapid decline in morale among faculty who face a growing disconnect from the courses they teach. Despite being unionized, part-time faculty have had few opportunities to influence the policies and procedures under which they work and do not have a voice on the committees that shape curriculum within the areas they teach. Academic freedom for part time faculty has always been limited but has narrowed further under a corporatization. Despite being unionized, part-time faculty are treated like freelancers constituting a second class citizenry of faculty. These realities shape the current contract struggle of the part-time faculty union.

As the administration has become more corporatized bringing in more human resources in the form of associate deans and assistants and attorneys, the union leadership did not. As a result, the administration was able to run the school for 12 years as if there was no union. In fact, there was not one grievance on record in 12 years – not one, no case ever went to arbitration, and no unfair labor practices were filed. In the midst of this corporatized academy, the union had little member involvement.

Because unionization is one of the only means for part time faculty voices to be heard, the union has undergone significant change in just the last year. It seems that the corporatization process has a capstone – at Columbia College this is being called “prioritization.”

Prioritization at Columbia College of Chicago

“Reprioritization,” or as it is called currently, “Prioritization,” includes ranking all programs according to how they fulfill the mission of the college, as well as what resources they consume.

What we do know is that Prioritization was brought in by the college during the summer of 2011. The purpose and goals of which were created without faculty or student voices. Soon after the fall semester began, the Faculty were invited to IMPLEMENT a vision for CCC that they had no role in imagining or shaping.

In addition to prioritization the administration has resisted bargaining. The part-time faculty union has been bargaining for over 18 months. We are committed to a fair contract one that includes due process, transparent and fair evaluations, job security, benefits and a dignified work environment. In my experience as lead negotiator, the college spent many months stalling, intimidating, and allowing legal to run bargaining.

I witnessed a complete disregard for labor law and the grievance process, and a refusal to work together toward a common goal. As a result, the union filed several Unfair Labor Practices and recently heard that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided to issue a complaint against Columbia College. The NLRB complaint alleges that Columbia College committed numerous violations of federal labor laws in connection with certain actions or conduct taken against the Part-Time Faculty Association (P-fac) and its members.

The complaint alleges that Columbia College committed the following illegal activities:

The College “has been failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith….”

The College “has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees….”

The College “has been discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization….”

In connection with the complaint issued against Columbia College, the General Counsel of the NLRB has further sought an order requiring the College to make whole all affected employees, and to provide all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the alleged unfair labor practices.

Despite productive small group meetings with Columbia and P-fac and a federal mediator over the summer, the College has decided not to engage in settlement talks and to turn back to what seems to be regressive bargaining and union busting tactics.

The College seeks to exclude any third party (an arbitrator, for example) from making a decision impacting the college. This is telling of the institution’s opposition to due process. The Administration wants management to be the sole decision maker, thereby excluding a shared voice in college policies, practices and vision. Because there is no genuine dialogue or commitment to labor relationship, the union is left protecting its part-time faculty through Unfair Labor Practice charges and grievances.

The Climate of Fear

This prioritization is taking pace within a larger context of fear where no one is safe (we have seen tenured faculty member fired, the provost left abruptly, and there is talk of eliminating and renaming programs).

President Carter has stated publicly that he does not believe in tenure. Bullying by administrators is condoned by inaction in the face of complaints. There are cuts to classroom support, but the number of attorneys has tripled in one year, contributing to a growing administration.

The administration has been successful in squelching dialogue as a matter of policy and overall climate (As an example I used to meet with department chairs to resolve complaints by members and it worked well, but now these conversations are either prohibited or monitored.)

This environment has dramatically impacted peoples lives. I would like to share a few examples:

1. A part-time faculty member who had been teaching at Columbia over 15 years, who was in good standing and had a good teaching record found herself placed in remediation – the reason given was a SINGLE poor student evaluation. When she sat to meet with the chair of her department, she was told: “you have no recourse” and “you are fired, what don’t you understand.” This situation provides just one example of many that reveal serious problems with the evaluation of part-time faculty and a lack of due process.

2. Another example comes from those faculty in History, Humanities, and Social Sciences who are particularly vulnerable, because most make a full-time living by teaching part time. So cuts in classes assigned to senior part-time faculty reveal how damaging it is for part-time faculty to be treated as freelancers who can be discarded.  Many part-time faculty here fear the loss of homes and are scrambling to secure teaching elsewhere. This situation reveals that all faculty have the need for a fair system of job security as one advances in their number of credit hours taught at the College reflecting mutual investment.

3. A faculty member with more than 30 years of teaching at the College, facing radical changes in curriculum for administrative reasons, has been repeatedly denied the opportunity to address the curriculum committee, to meet with the department chair, or to talk with the dean and numerous other administrators. Her experience reveals the need for part-time faculty to share in the overall faculty voice in curriculum decisions and other college decisions.

4. And finally, a Columbia College administrator equated a part-time faculty benefit with the opportunity to go a museum. I will quote a part-time faculty member’s response:

To equate the opportunity to go the the Museum of Contemporary Art with a union benefit offends me. I’m offended because I have cancer. I’m offended because in order to treat that cancer without health insurance would cost me between $3,000 and $4,000 a month. With insurance it costs $48.

Today, I spoke on the phone with my daughter. We joked that I could visit the museum in a wheelchair. And then she added, ‘if you had insurance, and you could afford it.’ Health insurance is a reasonable issue, and (name of administrator removed) doesn’t address it in any of her communications, as if part-time teachers don’t get sick.

She doesn’t bring up the issue of sick leave at all, except to say unit members take advantage of it. They seize the opportunity to get paid to take a day off. The mental strain of teaching isn’t considered or discussed. The need for rest is not discussed. I agree a teacher should do an honest day’s work, for an honest day’s pay. There’s nothing sophisticated about that. But to assume that teachers, especially part-time teachers, may not need a day away from teaching to attend a meeting for professional development, or that a mother or father won’t ever face the problem of caring for a sick child, in an emergency and to argue that teachers take advantage of the opportunity, begs the question, and undermines the basic integrity of teachers.

This is the environment in which we find ourselves.

The Response of Faculty

In this environment I continue to hear faculty and administrators say we have “no choice” and otherwise reflect a defeatist response to the prioritization. Within this environment, faculty are silencing each other. “Collegiality” has been rendered a tool of our own oppression. Since when is asking and even demanding factual information not collegial? Since when is posing difficult and insightful questions not collegial? When did “ collegiality” come to mean being silent in public while devaluing our colleagues and programs behind closed doors hoping that yours is still standing at the end of the day?

On the topic of collegiality, Anne Cassebaum in the most recent issue of Academe argues that “Collegiality suffers when inequalities separate us. At my first job all new faculty members were people you got to know. And now? There is stigma and exclusion to overcome. One adjunct faculty member where I worked was initially excluded from a departmental email list, although he was teaching an advanced course in the department. The justification that he was not ‘committed to the program’ was based upon his temporary status–reasoning that usually goes unchallenged. When faculty members in contingent appointments are excluded from collegial conversations, as well as opportunities in teaching, scholarship, and service, we lose the voices, energies, and insights they might have added.”

Today at Columbia College some faculty are allowing themselves to be used as “straw persons” to remove the focus from top administrators where decisions are rendered. Similarly, faculty are parroting administrative directives even while claiming that they personally disagree. In these ways and others, faculty generally are supporting prioritization and allowing ourselves to be divided and pitted against each other in the process. Indeed the process of prioritization itself is a setup of division.

While the full-time faculty formed a Senate and requested that a faculty advisory group for prioritization be formed, the faculty conversation is dramatically curtailed by the overall climate wherein asking a critical question can result in being labeled a “trouble-maker.”

This is a critical moment for Columbia College and for academia. This is a chance for faculty to believe in ourselves; to bring a demand for facts, for broader context, for clarifying questions and for criticality out from our classrooms and into the larger Columbia College forum; to realize that the current prioritization can only take place if we allow our minds and bodies to participate. This is a choice, and we make it every day.

Here is a letter (dated August 29, 2011) from an academic manager in the Department of Humanities, History, and Social Sciences, who chose to say NO:

As many of you may know by now, I resigned from my position as academic manager in HHSS. Due to my abrupt departure, I wish to share a few things with you. First, I regret that I followed some directives in my position, and I want you all to know that in my time as an academic manager I was not in charge of decisions regarding course assignments and other departmental policies. Some of you may have lost courses or were denied courses. These were not my decisions even though I was the one ostensibly ‘in charge’ of these things.

I made a conscious decision not to participate in intra-departmental politics, and I thought I could maintain my position while taking directives from the administration; it proved untenable for me. This job has been the worst professional experience I have ever had and I’m glad it’s over. Despite the negative experience, I had a chance to meet many great people that I hope to remain friends with. This message is meant to express support for the part-time faculty and explain why I left the department. I know there will be rumors and counter-claims. I plan on ignoring them.

Second, I know that you have been working without a contract since 2010. I also know that negotiations are ongoing. I disagree with the administration’s policies regarding part-time faculty. I believe that experienced part-time faculty should be retained and all part-time instructors should have a degree of job security.

I have spent many years as an adjunct instructor, and I am all too familiar with the lack of respect and difficulties of holding a position with no benefits or job security. I wish to express my best wishes to all part-time faculty and continued support for your struggle for fairness and justice.

We need to realize the strength of our voices that must not only fill classrooms but administrative offices and college board rooms. We need to realize that we are ONE faculty, united also with staff workers.

The Role of the AAUP

The AAUP is needed today. The content of faculty research must be protected, the current climate of corporatized academia demands that dialogue within academic institutions about academic institutions, policies, “reprioritization” and “prioritization” must be fostered and protected.

There is a curtailing of dialogue today at CCC through policies that have imposed silence, the creation of a new position to handle grievances has blocked P-fac from interacting with someone with the power to address problems raised.

There is a curtailment of dialogue at CCC through the tightening of controls over college space and resources.

There is a reason that today at CCC important questions are NOT being asked (for example, why are 2008 enrollments, a year with unprecedented enrollment, the measure of whether enrollments are up or down?). There is little challenge publicly expressed to prioritization and the administration’s approach to bargaining.

The exploitation of the part-time faculty and the corporatization of academia is not new, nor is it unique to Columbia College. What is fairly new are the attacks on collective bargaining as a tool for a much larger national effort to shape minds along a corporate model for generations to come.

We need to stop perceiving of and treating part-time faculty via the old model of freelancers and start to view each other as colleagues.

We are colleagues who need access to all the rights and privileges of the professoriate though accessed through a structure reflecting part-time, portion of full-time, and full-time status.

We need to support the right for all faculty to earn a living wage, have health care benefits, and opportunity for advancement. Those of us fortunate enough to have health insurance need to be willing to have a reduction in pay if it’s necessary so that everyone can have adequate health care.

We need to stand together as faculty to protect tenure.

We need to define “collegiality” through a framework of intelligent dialogue guided by principles that we share.

We are colleagues who need access to all the rights and privileges of the professorate in order to secure academic freedom and quality education. Failing to perceive and experience ourselves as colleagues divides us.

We share the same goals and interests and are creative enough to structure fair systems of access that reflect a part-time, full-time, or portion of full-time status.

Dialogue and exchange is a cornerstone of democracy and colleges and universities have historically been places where vigorous dialogue and debate were encouraged. Without policies and procedures to protect dialogue, faculty (and most of the rest of the college community) are rendered followers to administrative will.

I want to acknowledge that many important things have happened on this campus just this last year. The full-time faculty have formed a Senate and we look forward to part-time faculty inclusion within it. The part-time faculty union has been taking every measure to stand up to this administration and has refused to be silent. I am so proud of our members who have refused to trade their morals for a temporary slice of “prioritization.” The union has been building alliances with outside organizations because it is only through our collective efforts that “prioritization,” or “re-invention,” or “re-forming” higher education can be examined, critiqued, and contested where appropriate. Perhaps the most important alliance lies before us now: the full-time and part-time faculty have formed an AAUP chapter in the midst of prioritization. This is a historical meeting taking place.

The AAUP is important today on this campus, in part, because it is an outside institution; also partly because it is highly respected within academic circles. But the AAUP is important primarily because it offers principles upon which to ground a critique of what is happening at CCC and guide a response to it. These principles provide a means of unification that get beyond full-time vs. part-time faculty or union worker interests versus nonunion worker interests.

We have a union that believes in grassroots unionism one that is based on principals of rank-and-file communication, development, and involvement. As a result I see the potential of power we have when we are unified. This power only becomes strengthened by unification with full time faculty and the Columbia college community.

AAUP can serve as a unifying force here. Our AAUP chapter has an opportunity to respond to what is a national crisis in academia. I have great hope for this AAUP chapter, and for Columbia College Chicago.

I’d like to end with a quote by Margaret Mead:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has