March 31, 2008
New Law #3: Better Contracts seen for contingent faculty
Many people used to use “part timer” as a synonym for “adjunct.” Increasingly, the two words can’t be assumed to be interchangeable, as one of the fastest growing job categories in higher education is the full-time instructor off the tenure track. With that in mind, faculty unions are talking more about the need to include specific provisions in contracts to help this subset of the professorial work force.Read the whole story at Inside Higher Education.
An example (from the Rider University/AAUP 2007-11 Collective Bargaining Agreement):
ADJUNCT BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS
A. Initial Hiring of Adjunct Faculty
Both parties to this Agreement recognize the importance of assuring
the quality of teaching that occurs in Rider University regardless of whether
that teaching is done by a full-time member of the faculty or an adjunct
member of the faculty. In order to assemble a pool of qualified adjunct
faculty the following procedures shall be followed in hiring and evaluating
1. Appointment of Adjunct Faculty
It shall be the responsibility of the members of the relevant
department or program to review the credentials of candidates for
adjunct faculty positions and to make recommendations to the
appropriate dean for appointment. The dean consistent with the
other elements of this Agreement shall offer an adjunct contract to
the individual(s) recommended by the faculty of the department or
2. Teaching Evaluation of Adjunct Faculty
It shall be the responsibility of the full-time faculty of the
department or program within which an adjunct faculty member is
teaching to evaluate, at least once a year, the teaching effectiveness
of a non-preferred, non-priority adjunct faculty member (as
defined, respectively, in Sections B and C, below), for the purpose
of the professional development of the adjunct faculty member and
future recommendations to the dean for adjunct appointment. Such
evaluations and recommendations shall be based solely on the
teaching effectiveness of the adjunct faculty member.
3. Department and Program Assignments for Adjuncts
Each adjunct bargaining unit member will be assigned to a
department or program for purposes of evaluation, seniority, and
B. Seniority Status of Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct faculty who have taught a minimum of thirty-six (36) credit
hours (or the equivalent applied hours) within six (6) consecutive years
(including summers) for the University shall be given "preferred" status for
courses for which they are qualified. A twenty-four (24) month break in
service, whether voluntary or due to a lack of work, will terminate an
adjunct faculty member's preferred status. The count for such status shall
be retroactive to September 1993. Appointment to courses from the pool of
qualified adjunct faculty shall occur in the following order, following
assignment of workloads to full-time faculty pursuant to Article XXVII:
1. First Adjunct Priority
Adjunct faculty with Priority Appointment status, as defined in
Section C below, shall first be offered courses up to their maximum
allowed workload. If there are insufficient available courses or
sections of courses to provide qualified Priority Appointment status
appointees with as many courses/sections as they have requested
and if there is more than one Priority Appointment status appointee
requesting available courses, the courses shall be awarded on the
basis of seniority. Seniority for purposes of this section shall be
computed on the basis of the number of semesters of service,
excluding summer sessions. The details of the application of
seniority to be applied shall be agreed to by the AAUP and the
2. Second Adjunct Priority
A distinguished "Visiting" faculty member, hired pursuant Article
VII (C) shall be deemed to be more senior than an adjunct holding
preferred status for purposes of workload assignments, provided the
"Visiting" faculty member is employed at least half-time with
benefits equivalent to those accorded Priority Status Adjuncts or
3. Third Adjunct Priority
Adjunct faculty in the seniority pool who hold preferred
appointment status will then be offered courses up to their allowable
workload. If there are insufficient available courses or sections to
provide qualified preferred adjunct faculty in the seniority pool with
as many courses/sections they have requested, the available courses
shall be awarded on the basis of seniority. Seniority for the purpose
of this Section shall be computed on the basis of the number of
semesters of service, excluding summer sessions. The details of the
application of seniority to be applied shall be agreed to by the
AAUP and the University.
4. Opportunity to Teach
No adjunct faculty member shall be denied the opportunity to teach
a course for the purpose of denying him/her the opportunity to
subsequently achieve preferred appointment status or to apply for
Priority Appointment status.
C. Adjunct Priority Appointment Status
1. Lawrenceville Adjuncts Holding Priority Appointment Status
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit appointed to teaching
departments or programs on the Lawrenceville campus who have
previously been granted Priority Appointment status shall continue
to maintain such status if they continue to teach an average of
twelve (12) hours per year during the most recent three (3) year
2. Lawrenceville Adjuncts Granted Priority Appointment Status
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit appointed to departments
on the Lawrenceville campus who attain an average of twelve (12)
hours of teaching per year for the previous three (3) years and who
apply for and are approved for Priority Appointment status
according to the procedures of Section E shall be granted Priority
Appointment status and shall continue to maintain such status if
they continue to teach an average of twelve (12) hours per year
during the Fall and/or Spring semester in the most recent three-year
3. Westminster Adjuncts Holding Priority Appointment Status
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit appointed to departments
on the Westminster campus, who as of September 1, 1994, were
granted Priority Appointment status shall continue to maintain such
status if they continue to teach an average of twelve (12) classroom
hours (or the equivalent applied hours) per year during the most
recent three-year period.
4. Westminster Adjuncts Granted Priority Appointment Status
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit appointed to departments
on the Westminster campus, who subsequent to September 1, 1994,
attain an average of fourteen (14) classroom hours (or the equivalent
applied hours) during the previous three (3) years and who apply for
and are approved for Priority Appointment status according to the
procedures of Section E shall be accorded Priority Appointment
status and shall continue to maintain such status if they continue to
teach an average of fourteen (14) classroom hours (or the equivalent
applied hours) per year in the most recent three-year period.
5. Break in Service
An adjunct faculty member holding Priority Appointment status
may request of the dean a break in service of up to one calendar
year, which if approved by the dean will not result in loss of Priority
Appointment status. One such break may be requested in any five
(5) year period. The University shall not be obligated to provide
benefits during such a break in service.
D. Adjunct Library Faculty
Certain adjunct librarians shall be granted priority in appointment
for bargaining unit work for which they are qualified (“Priority
Appointment status”). Such adjunct members of the library faculty are as
1. Library Adjuncts Holding Priority Appointment Status
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit, who have been employed
as library faculty and who have previously been granted Priority
Appointment status shall continue to maintain such status if they
continue to work, on average, on at least a half-time basis in the
most recent three-year period.
2. Library Adjuncts Granted Priority Appointment Status
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit, who are employed as
library faculty on at least a half-time basis during the previous three
(3) years and who apply for and are approved for Priority
Appointment status according to the procedures of Section E shall
be accorded Priority Appointment status. They shall continue to
maintain such status if they continue to work, on average, on at least
a half-time basis in the most recent three-year period.
E. Adjunct Workload
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit appointed to departments
or programs on the Lawrenceville campus who held Priority Appointment
status as of September 1, 1994, and who continue to hold Priority
Appointment status and adjunct members of the bargaining unit appointed
to departments or programs on the Princeton campus who held Priority
Appointment or Preferred Appointment status as of September 1, 2008, and
who continue to hold Priority or Preferred Appointment status, shall
continue to be eligible to teach up to nine (9) classroom contact hours in a
single semester but shall not be eligible to claim full-time status because of
such teaching load. All other adjunct members of the bargaining unit shall
teach no more than six (6) classroom contact hours (except that adjunct
faculty teaching Musicianship may teach up to 7.5 classroom hours and
adjunct faculty of WCA up to fifteen (15) applied contact hours) in a single
F. Notice of Workload
The University shall provide adjunct faculty with as much advance
notice as practicable of their next term's workload assignments so as to
allow them reasonable time to prepare course materials and to order books
and supplies at the same time as the full-time faculty. The University may
grant annual contracts to adjunct members of the faculty who have held
Priority Appointment status for a minimum of three (3) years. Such annual
contracts are contingent upon sufficient enrollment for the assigned
courses. If a course assigned to an adjunct faculty member holding Priority
Appointment status is cancelled because of insufficient enrollment,
unstaffed courses or courses previously assigned to adjunct members of the
faculty without Priority Appointment status shall be reassigned to the
faculty member whose course was cancelled. Courses assigned to an
adjunct faculty member holding Priority Appointment status may be
reassigned to a full-time member of the faculty whose course assignment,
through cancellation of a course or courses, fails to meet the required
minimum load. However, unstaffed sections, overload sections, and
sections previously assigned to an adjunct member of the faculty without
Priority Appointment status will be reassigned to such full-time member of
the faculty before a section or sections are reassigned from an adjunct
member of the faculty holding Priority Appointment status. Sections
assigned to an adjunct member of the faculty holding Priority Appointment
status shall not be reassigned to a full-time member of the faculty to
accommodate a request from the full-time member of the faculty for an
overload assignment, if such request was not made by the deadline set by
the department chair during the workload planning process.
G. Application Procedures for Priority Appointment Status
To apply for Priority Appointment status, an adjunct faculty
member who meets the eligibility requirement set forth in this Article shall
notify his/her departmental chairperson/program director by October 15.
The full-time members of the department or program shall have the
professional responsibility to evaluate the teaching effectiveness or support
of the teaching-learning process of such individual and to submit to the
dean by November 15 a recommendation concerning Priority Appointment
status for such individual. This recommendation shall be based solely on
the evaluation of the adjunct member’s teaching effectiveness or support of
the teaching-learning process. The evaluation shall follow the same
procedures for departmental participation, candidate's review of
department's and chairperson's reports, and dean's review as set forth for
non-tenured faculty members in Article X, Sections A (1-3) and B. The
dean shall send to the candidate a written evaluation by December 15,
specifying whether the candidate has been granted Priority Appointment
status. A candidate who is denied Priority Appointment status by the dean
may reapply for such status in any succeeding year, provided the candidate
H. Extension of Priority Appointment Status
1. Procedures for Applying for the Extension of Priority
Appointment Status to a New Department
If an adjunct member of the bargaining unit holding Priority
Appointment status wishes to teach in a department in which he/she
does not hold such status, he/she shall make a written application to
the new department, declaring that he/she holds Priority
Appointment status and specifying which course or courses he/she
requests to teach in the department. The full-time members of the
department shall evaluate the applicant’s credentials for the
specified course(s) and, if a majority of such full-time members
deem the applicant academically qualified, the department shall
assign him/her up to two (2) available sections of a requested course
on a trial basis. Applicants who are deemed unqualified shall not be
offered courses in the department. After an applicant who has been
deemed qualified has taught two (2) sections in the department, the
full-time members of the department shall provide the applicant
with a written evaluation or evaluations of his/her teaching with
their reasons for approving or denying the extension of Priority
Appointment status to the department. To receive departmental
approval for the extension of Priority Appointment status, the
applicant must receive the approval of a majority of full-time
department members. If the department is in a college other than
the college in which the applicant originally held Priority
Appointment status, the department shall forward any approval of
extension of Priority Appointment status to the dean, who will
render a decision in the manner provided for the dean in Section G.
Applicants who are denied extension of Priority Appointment status
by the department or, when relevant, by the dean shall not be
offered further courses in that department.
2. Procedures for Applying for Extension of Priority Appointment
Status to a New Discipline in a Multi-Disciplined Department
If a part-time member of the bargaining unit holding Priority
Appointment status wishes to teach in a discipline within a multi110
disciplined department other than a discipline in which he/she holds
Priority Appointment status, he/she must apply for extension of
Priority Appointment status to the second discipline, following the
procedures in Section 1.
I. Promotion of Adjunct Faculty Members
Adjunct members of the bargaining unit shall be eligible, after the
completion of at least four (4) semesters, to apply for promotion from
Adjunct Instructor to Adjunct Assistant Professor, at least six (6) semesters
after appointment or promotion to Adjunct Assistant Professor for
promotion to Adjunct Associate Professor, and at least six (6) semesters
after appointment or promotion to Adjunct Associate Professor for
promotion to Adjunct Professor. All of the above requirements refer to
teaching at the University during the Fall and Spring semesters.
Candidates shall apply for promotion by contacting the appropriate
department, program, or division and making arrangements for evaluations
by the department chairperson or director and the members of the
department, program, or division. Such evaluations shall be forwarded to
the appropriate college/school Promotion and Tenure Committee and the
application shall be processed by such with all of the procedures provided
for in Article VIII. For processing of applications for promotion of adjunct
faculty members who are not assigned to a college, three (3) faculty
bargaining unit members selected by the members of the program, as
defined by the UAPC, the director, the Provost, the Associate Provost, and
the Chairperson of the Promotion and Tenure Committee shall serve as a
Promotion Committee. Standards for promotion shall be as follows:
1. Effective Teaching or Support of the Teaching-Learning Process
Candidates must show evidence of effective teaching or, for library
faculty, effective support of the teaching-learning process, as
required under Article VIII for full-time members of the bargaining
2. Scholarly and/or Appropriate Professional Activity
For promotion from Adjunct Instructor to Adjunct Assistant
Professor, candidates must show evidence of scholarly and/or
appropriate professional activity. For promotion to a higher rank,
evidence of some scholarly activity of the nature described in
Article VIII for full-time members of the bargaining unit is required.
3. Contributions to Department, College, or University
Candidates must show evidence of contributions to the department,
college, or University.
J. Faculty Rank and Tenure
Appointment of adjunct faculty on a continuing basis under this
Article does not entitle such adjunct faculty members to full-time tenure
track appointments. Nor shall possession of an adjunct faculty rank entitle
an individual to the corresponding rank if such individual becomes a fulltime
member of the faculty. Instead, such individual shall be required to
undergo the appointment procedure under Article VII and may be assigned
such rank as may be appropriate.
K. Salary Limits
In the event that a full-time member of the bargaining unit leaves
the ranks of full-time faculty, and is subsequently hired as an adjunct,
his/her salary will be no greater than that which he/she would have earned
if he/she had remained on the full-time faculty, reduced to the proportion of
the full-time load he/she is teaching.
L. Working Conditions
1. All adjunct facuty shall have access to appropriate space in
order to meet privately with students in their classes.
2. Adjunct faculty shall have access to all course-support services
(secretarial, copying, mail, etc.) on the same basis as full-time
3. All adjunct faculty shall be provided with voicemail and email accounts.
Publications #3: Legal issues in distance education
Legal Issues in Distance Education, Binder
Publication Type: Compendia
Member Price: $115.00
Non-Member Price: $160.00
Edited by Deborah C. Brown, John R. Przypyszny, and Katherine R. Tromble
The advent of online education - both in the form of so-called "distance learning" and as a supplement to traditional classroom teaching and learning - continues to dramatically alter the face of higher education. The use of new technology, including all of the facets of the Internet, presents a host of legal and practical questions for colleges and universities. The contents of this compendium are organized around five sections. The first includes a variety of resources intended to familiarize the reader with the myriad issues than can arise in effectuating distance education; the second section addresses accreditation and state and federal regulation; the third section focuses on copyright, intellectual property, and other technology issues; the fourth section examines discrimination- and accessibility-related issues for individuals with disabilities; and the final section includes materials relating to student affairs and academic and conduct codes in the context of distance education. The compendium also includes a listing of additional resources and helpful websites. 2007. 962 pp. Also available on CD-ROM. NACUA member institutions: $115.00; Non-member institutions: $160.00.Buy it from NACUA here.
Publications #2: Student Risk Management Compendium
Student Risk Management in Higher Education: A Legal Compendium, Binder
Publication Type: Compendia
Member Price: $120.00
Non-Member Price: $165.00
Edited by Kimberly J. Novak and Art M. Lee
Managing and minimizing the risks associated with students and student-related activities is no small feat. Given the tremendous breadth of activities that comprise the higher education environment today, the types of risks that exist are practically endless. This compendium brings together more than 50 law review and other journal articles, reports, conference presentations, and institutional policies, procedures, and forms. It examines the fundamental concepts and philosophies related to student affairs risk management in higher education, as well as the issues of liability and transfer of risk. The majority of the compendium outlines strategies and provides a panoply of resources for specific events and situations, including: student travel and transportation, residential life, student organizations, events involving minors, athletic events, sports clubs, alcohol and other drugs, high risk behavior and mental health issues, and academic internships and externships. This is an essential resource for higher education administrators and attorneys who work with and⁄or advise students in activities outside the classroom. 2007. 1,112 pp.Buy it from NACUA here.
Publications #1: Book on Faculty Background Checks
Who Are Your Faculty and Staff? Background Checks in Academe
Publication Type: Pamphlet
Member Price: $25.00
Non-Member Price: $30.00
By Barbara A. Lee, Steven D. Frenkil, Sandra J. McLelland, and Dickens Mathieu
Given the proliferation of resume fraud, the potential for liability in hiring an employee who has a history of violence or dishonesty, and the special concerns created by the presence of sex offenders on campus, many institutions are adopting background checks for all or a large portion of their workforce, including faculty members and even volunteers.Buy it from NACUA here.
New Law #2: Law would make universities the cops
Institutions are facing the prospect of playing beat cop in the ongoing war over music and movie piracy between college students and entertainment conglomerates.
The U.S. House passed a bill in January that would require colleges and universities to install piracy detection systems on their networks for the express purpose of nabbing illegal downloaders. The bill, HR 4137, would also force institutions to offer legal alternatives such as Ruckus to music piracy on their networks. Ruckus is underwritten by advertisers and provides free digital music on many campuses.Read the rest of Joe Dysart's story at the Greentree Gazette.
Law Primer #1: Study Group offers guidance on archiving digital information
New Law #1: A setback at the Patent Office for BlackBoard
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a preliminary decision that rejects all 44 claims Blackboard Inc. made regarding the controversial patent it was granted for an online-learning system. If upheld, the decision could have sweeping ramifications for Blackboard's competitors and universities that use course-management software.Read the rest of this story at the Chronicle of Higher Education.
March 30, 2008
Opinion #6: It may not be too late for "W" to achieve a Mid-East breakthrough
Stranger things have happened in the past two decades.
by Jim Castagnera
George W. Bush has just nine more months in office. Then he will write his memoirs, build his library and face his legacy. Many will cheer his departure. Many will rank him low on the list of modern presidents. That might be premature. Mr. Bush has a few things about which he can boast.Lulu here.
If we make it through the next nine months with no significant terrorist attacks on US territory, his post-Nine/Eleven record will be perfect. Whatever the successes and failures of the War on Terror, he will have batted a thousand in that important category at least.
His (largely unsung) success in Africa is another high spot of his presidency. At its inception only about 50,000 African HIV/AIDS sufferers had access to the medicinal cocktails that prolong normal life. Today millions are enjoying those drugs.
In the tumultuous world of K-12 public schools his “No Child Left Behind” Act is controversial, its renewal in doubt. More time is required to assess its efficacy.
Then there is the five-year-old war in Iraq. No real doubt remains about how badly we were misled by the Bush Administration. Saddam Hussein’s regime had no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to Al Qaeda. To the contrary, recently released documents indicate Hussein considered Al Qaeda a dangerous rival.
The troop surge seems to be working in Iraq, though suicide bombers continue to work their mischief with bloody consequences. Meanwhile, Obama’s aids have admitted that the senator, if elected, cannot make good on his campaign rhetoric about an immediate pullout. No matter who replaces Mr. Bush, America is in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Is there a silver lining? For W’s legacy, the lining could be a peace accord in the Middle East. If he and Secretary of State Rice could pull off an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty and significantly draw down the US military presence in a more peaceful Iraq, Mr. B’s presidential legacy could include a stable Middle East. This would be a very big deal indeed.
The odds of this happening, of course, are long. Still, stranger things have happened in recent decades.
Who but Ronald Reagan really believed that America would suddenly win the Cold War, that the Berlin Wall would be ripped down virtually overnight, and that the Evil Empire would spin apart?
Who but Nelson Mandela really believed South African Apartheid would end without a bloodbath?
And who ever imagined that peace would finally break out in Northern Ireland?
Yet all these things happened in the past two decades, which makes me believe that peace in the Middle East may also be a real possibility.
Whether that happens or not, of course, some decades will have to pass before the jury of historians comes in with a reliable verdict on the Bush presidency. As I pointed out in this space a couple of weeks ago, some scholars are only just now beginning to take a second look at the war in Vietnam in light of subsequent political and economic developments in East and Southeast Asia. When that jury is finally in, LBJ may no longer look like a tragic figure driven from office by a foolish blunder.
Likewise, whatever happens in the Middle East in the next nine months, those readers still young enough will have to wait until they are senior citizens to see what will be the ultimate legacy of W’s two terms in the White House.
[Jim Castagnera, formerly of Jim Thorpe, is the Associate Provost/Associate Counsel at Rider University. A collection of his “Attorney at Large” columns is available at www.lulu.co,]
Opinion #5: Higher Education is blooming in the Middle Eastern desert
Opinion #4: What if we had had today's technology back in 1963?
By Jim Castagnera
No historian, at least none of a certain age, can see “Vantage Point” without recalling the Zapruder Film. On November 22, 1963, Abraham Zapruder stood in Dallas’s Dealey Plaza, filming JFK’s motorcade with his 8mm Kodachrome movie camera. Zapruder’s 486 frames are without any doubt the most carefully perused and hotly debated 26 seconds of film of the 20th century. Historians, conspiracy theorists, journalists, and movie makers have variously contended that the footage proves that Oswald acted alone, or that he didn’t, that the president was hit from behind and/or from the front, that shooters fired from the so-called grassy knoll, or that they didn’t.
“Vantage Point” is the answer to the JFK-assassination junkie’s dream. The film, which features Dennis Quaid as a Secret Service agent and Forest Whitaker as a tourist with a video camera, has the president of the United States appearing in a Spanish plaza, prefatory to a world summit on terrorism. Just past noon, as POTUS poses at the podium, an assassin’s bullets rip the air. Multiple explosions follow, throwing the throng into a panic and setting a complex conspiracy into motion.
True to the film’s title, the plaza incident is re-run four times. Viewers see the incident first through the multiple lenses of a major TV network, under the direction of a tough newswoman (Sigourney Weaver). Subsequent replays show us what Whitaker’s single lens captured, as well as what the president’s security detail and the terrorist leader could see.
One must assume that Director Pete Travis and Screenwriter Barry Levy had Dealey Plaza 45 years ago in their minds’ eyes, as they developed and filmed this project. We, the film goers, have the cinematic equivalent here of what every historian of the Sixties and every conspiracy buff who believes Oswald was a “patsy” would give his eye teeth to possess: multiple perspectives on the crucial 26 seconds of history that belong now only to Abraham Zapruder’s home movie footage.
“Vantage Point” also brought to this writer’s mind a scene from Oliver Stone’s controversial 1991 “JFK.” In that tour de force, Joe Pesci’s ultra-paranoid David Ferrie tells Kevin Costner’s Jim Garrison, the dogged New Orleans DA, “This is a riddle inside an enigma wrapped in a mystery.” Stone and Pesci can be forgiven for borrowing Winston Churchill’s 1939 comment about the Soviet Union. The Kennedy assassination is exactly that.
“Vantage Point” uses masterful editing to illustrate how 21st century electronics can peel away the layers of the enigmatic onion. The movie also eerily illustrates how a conspiracy, as unlikely as it is difficult to disprove in the case of Kennedy’s killing, might be orchestrated in our age of cell phones, Blackberries, and robotics. As we come up on the seventh anniversary of Nine/Eleven, a certain cockiness can perhaps be detected in the passion of many Americans --- principally those who have lifted a politician who four years ago was an obscure Illinois state senator into the front rank of the presidential primary races --- to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan at our earliest opportunity.
At the end of this fast-paced, high-action film, the viewer is left with the sense that nothing in the rather complex plot is beyond the realm of potential. Although mainland America has been attack-free since September 11, 2001, both London and (as “Vantage Point” reminds us with an angry mob of anti-American protesters who meet the POTUS motorcade at the entrance of the plaza) Spain have suffered severe terrorist attacks during the intervening years. And plots have been foiled in New Jersey and elsewhere around our own nation.
“Vantage Point,” which opened last month, tantalizes us over what we might know about 11/22/63, had the technology existed, and cautions us about what may yet be our destiny, if we fail to appreciate the power that modern technology places in the hands of international terrorists today.