BY STEVE MUMME

It was a landmark moment when Colorado State’s faculty council voted to endorse the Committee on the Responsibilities and Academic Standing of Faculty’s (CoRSAF’s) proposal  establishing “contract” faculty appointments for non-tenure track faculty (NTTF) on campus. The new appointment type effectively brings those faculty out of the shadows and into the mainstream of faculty life on campus.  They have gained greater academic freedom, new opportunities for participation in faculty governance, better chances for professional development and career pathways within the university.  While the details remain to be worked out at the college and department levels it is fair to call this a sea change in how NTTF’s are treated on campus. It is no exaggeration to claim this puts CSU in the vanguard of the contingent faculty reform movement among Colorado’s state universities.

And yet, as may be expected of a measure that breaks new ground on faculty status at a Research I university, some grumblings persist as our tenure-track faculty face the prospect of welcoming new (old) colleagues into the fold.  Practical issues ranging from status nomenclatures for contract positions to voting procedures confront departments across the campus. And, yes, some tenured faculty view the new practices of inclusion as a Trojan Horse that will disgorge an arsenal of attacks on the practice of tenure.

They needn’t worry. For starters, the Section E reforms affirm the status and standing of tenured and tenure-track faculty. No changes there.

But do the reforms incentivize the hiring of “contract” faculty in lieu of tenure-track positions?  Not likely.

It is useful to reflect on how things have gone at Colorado State.  Drawing on figures available from the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness (Fast Facts and earlier reports) we see that our NTTF faculty in the last 20 years grew from a figure of 395 in 1997 to 765 in 2017, an increase of 94 percent. This is certainly not the greatest increase in an American college or university in this period, but it is substantial and indicative of nationwide trends.  Figures are unavailable on the number of NTTF with doctoral or terminal degrees but anecdotal evidence suggests that a hefty majority do have Ph.D.’s, MFA’s or some other terminal degree. As a group this is a professionally accomplished and well qualified body of faculty.  Unfortunately, most work under highly precarious circumstances with little assurance of sustained employment even after years of commendable service.

There is no concrete evidence that the growth of this contingent faculty workforce has come at the expense of tenured faculty. During this same period of time the number of tenured and tenure track faculty (regular appointments) grew from 990 in 1997 to a total of 1081 faculty in 2017, an increase of 91 regular positions. In 1997 NTTF were 29 percent of CSU’s total faculty workforce; in 2017 they made up 41 percent of the faculty workforce. What is certain is that the growth of NTTF positions correlates well with the steady growth in the number of enrolled students, principally undergraduate students, since 1997, a period when CSU’s student total headcount rose from 22,344 to 33,198.

Table 1.  Colorado State University  NTTF facts:

Source:  CSU Fast Facts (Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness)

While the administration could have hired more tenured track faculty to cope with student enrollment growth during this 20 year period, it seems doubtful they would have since the lion’s share of this enrollment growth came at the undergraduate level.   It is difficult to argue that maintaining the status quo—or to put it another way, failing to improve the status and opportunities available to NTTF—would have improved the odds of persuading the administration to hire more tenure track faculty.   Were this the case we would have surely seen greater growth in tenure-track positions over this 20 year period.  The simple truth is that tenure –track appointments have been tied to the university’s research function for years.  Tenured faculty may not like the idea of a two-track faculty—I don’t either. But that’s what we have and the Section E reforms help to narrow the distance between these tracks and shore up professional respect for the centrality of our pedagogical functions.  That’s not bad.  And affording NTTF’s contracts has the virtue of reinforcing the case for tenure.

A major strength of the Section E reforms is extending the mantle of academic freedom to cover most faculty on campus.  That is no mean thing. Contractual security and the right to a faculty hearing when disputes with administrators arise is essential to any meaningful notion of academic freedom. Despite what some tenured faculty may believe, tenure is not a contractual right to lifetime employment.  The concept of tenure was never justified that way.[1]  The recent boast of a shall-not-be-named professor at Fresno State University to the contrary notwithstanding,[2] the security that tenure affords is meant to protect faculty from assault on their academic freedom. Anyone reading the higher education press today should know that speech freedom, in and out of the classroom, is a major concern these days. Thanks to the internet we live in a time with professors can be scrutinized globally, 24/7, and assigned to somebody’s Professors’ Watchlist or target group for any utterance someone finds offensive, or for no reason at all. What we do in the classroom is more public today than at any time in human history.

If that fact doesn’t strengthen the tenured faculty’s commitment to academic freedom, and shared governance, it certainly should.   Extending protections to NTTF’s strengthens protection for all faculty, the tenured included.

There’s more.  A decent argument can be made that closing the salary-occupational gap between contract faculty and tenured faculty strengthens the case for hiring tenure-track faculty where a graduate research and professional benefit can be shown.  I certainly defer to the economists in our midst on this question, but where the cost differential of capturing additional values for the university from a new faculty hire is diminished, the probability of opting for such a hire should improve.  At the very least this is a case of the glass half-full. There is no implicit reason to suppose that tenure-track hiring will decline on account of the Section E. reform.

Finally, moving to shore up NTTF conditions at the university level creates a positive feedback loop to our disciplinary associations, encouraging their efforts to strengthen professional opportunities for faculty. I see this directly in my discipline, where a notoriously stodgy professional body, the American Political Science Association just recently established a standing committee to articulate the concerns of contingent faculty, something it never would have done without the steady mobilization of NTTF’s across the country and on-the-ground efforts by specific universities to address their concerns.[3]

In sum, there is every reason to applaud this reform in full confidence that support for tenure and our tenured faculty ranks is undiminished. Breathe easy.

1] .  Aaron Barlow, “Abusing the idea of tenure,” Academe Blog, April 22, 2018.  At:    https://academeblog.org/2018/04/21/abusing-the-idea-of-tenure/

[2] .  Colleen Flaherty,  Protected Speech, a ‘perfect’ political target,” Inside Higher Ed., April 24, 2018.  At: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/24/randa-jarrar-case-fresno-state-has-attracted-national-attention-much-it-arguably

[3] American Political Science Association.  2018. Status Committee on Contingent Faculty in the Profession.  http://www.apsanet.org/contingentfaculty

Guest blogger Steve Mumme is a professor of political science at Colorado State University and co-president of the Colorado state AAUP conference.