Frequently Asked Questions on Implementing New Promotion

Frequently Asked Questions
on Implementing New Promotion Practices for Part-time Faculty
Please note: The following responses are based on findings outlined in the
documents Faculty Employment at USF: Conditions, Concerns, and Suggestions
and Calculation for a New Faculty Model, and are intended for further discussions.
1. Why should changes to current practices of adjunct employment be
discussed?
a. Studies demonstrate a direct link between institutions’ support for adjunct
faculty (or their lack thereof) and said faculty’s ability to teach effectively.
b. Adjuncts, who teach the majority of the student credit hours, are currently not
given appropriate support to ensure teaching excellence and this may
negatively affect student learning and retention.
c. Current hiring and employment practices are unfair to adjuncts and ultimately
untenable.
d. The quality of instruction and the strength of programs is undermined by
current practices.
e. Collaboration and cohesion among faculty is undermined by current practices.
f. The service to our students is undermined by current practices.
g. The debate about the inequities in adjunct employment is receiving increasing
publicity nationally and in main stream media, ultimately damaging the
reputation of universities.
h. USF explicitly espouses ethical values and social justice in its mission
statement, and, hence, should be a leader in promoting social justice within its
own institution.
i. There is an increasingly growing movement among Jesuit universities to
foster worker justice, including that of adjuncts.
2. When should a full-time position for an adjunct be allocated?
The allocation of a full-time position should be based on a department’s
demonstration of a consistent programmatic need for teaching faculty.
3. What should be the requirements and criteria for an adjunct's promotion to
full time status?
a. PHP Status or eligibility for PHP (the admittance of an adjunct to the
“Preferred Hiring Pool” currently requires a minimum of 32 units of teaching at
USF).
b. Proof of teaching excellence and commitment to students and the university's
mission.
c. Recommendation by the department (based on a majority vote of faculty with
full-time employment).
d. Approval by the USFFA Peer Review Committee.
4. What is the advantage of adjunct promotion over national searches to fill
full-time teaching positions?
a. The promotion of adjuncts provides greater continuity within programs and
departments, and benefits students.
b. The promotion of adjuncts to full-time positions would only be granted based
on already proven teaching excellence and commitment, which are arguably
better indicators of actual performance than job interviews and CVs.
c. "In-house" promotion constitutes significant savings in time and money over
national searches.
d. No other business does a job search before promoting a current employee to
take on greater responsibilities.
e. No promotional opportunities for full-time faculty, such as tenure, nor the
renewal of term contracts are tied to a national search.
f. National searches should still be conducted for filling tenure-track positions
and the recruitment of outstanding researchers in the field.
5. Given the unregulated, and often ad-hoc hiring of many adjuncts, aren’t we
foregoing the opportunity to find better qualified instructors for full-time
positions through national searches?
a. In order to disperse this concern, the current lack of procedures and
requirements for hiring adjuncts should be addressed by establishing a
standing Hiring Committee for each college that allocates positions to
departments/programs and oversees hiring processes based on specific rules
and regulations.
b. Any adjunct faculty member who is considered qualified to be promoted to a
full-time position will have undergone vigorous scrutiny; the promotion will be
based on a long-term commitment to USF and its mission as well as evidence
of consistent teaching effectiveness.
6. Would this new line of faculty employment change current conditions for
term positions?
Yes. Full-time term positions would be converted back to their original intent: the
temporary replacement of tenure-track faculty who are on sabbatical or other
leaves of absence.
7. What would happen to current term faculty?
Current multi-year term positions should be “grandfathered” in with continuous
contracts, or through transitions to tenured employment.
8. Wouldn't this new line create a two tier system among full-time faculty?
a. We already have a two-tier system among full-time faculty since term faculty
work under different conditions, e.g. they do not have job security, are not
entitled to sabbaticals, and do not receive compensation for research.
b. Currently, the large group of adjuncts (about 2/3 of all faculty) are not even
considered in this paradigm; they work with no or limited benefits and most
earn less than a living wage.
c. Addressing the inequitable and ultimately unsustainable current employment
practices by offering adjuncts the possibility of promotion to full-time status is
a step toward redressing the inequities between faculty that are not officially
recognized at this point.
9. Why should current full-time faculty support this proposal?
a. Departments and programs would be strengthened by a greater number of
fully invested instructors.
b. The quality of instruction would improve due to less turnovers and new hires
under more rigorous and consistent hiring practices and evaluation.
c. Highly qualified current adjuncts would be able to take on more teaching
assignments.
d. Service assignments would be more evenly distributed among a greater
number of full-time faculty.
e. Time for interviewing, hiring, and mentoring new adjuncts would be reduced.
10. How would this new line of faculty impact tenure-track/tenured faculty
a. The current service-load for all full-time faculty would be reduced.
b. The research component of tenure-track appointments will be strengthened
when more faculty are fully invested in teaching and service.
c. The tenure system would be strengthened by a clear distinction between
teaching and teaching/research positions.
11. What would be the benefits to the university?
a. The overall quality of instruction would improve since fully employed
instructors would be more invested in teaching, teaching development, and
student services, potentially leading to better student retention.
b. The overall quality of instruction would improve since the promotional
opportunity will motivate adjuncts to deepen their engagement in their
teaching, within their departments, and with their students.
c. The overall quality of instruction would improve due to less turnover among
instructors and a greater continuity within programs and departments.
d. Wages and benefits for the new line of full-time instructors would be
considerably less than current compensation for term faculty, thus allowing for
an increase of fully employed faculty.
e. Less national searches would save significant amounts of time and resources.
f. USF could emerge as a leader for social change in the increasingly urgent
and public debate over adjunct employment conditions.
g. USF’s Mission and Values Statement would be better reflected in its own
employment practices.