Site Map
Calendar
Join our lists and receive site news!
 
Return to Higher Ed home page
  Contact Higher Ed
Higher Ed Conference
Guide to HE Site
  Table of Contents
February 2009
Advocate Online
They're Talking On Campus...
On the Road
Action Line
In the Know
From Capitol to Campus
NEA Affiliates in Action
Thriving in Academe
Higher Education News
The Dialogue
Speaking Out
Previous Advocate Issues




Advocate Online

Speaking Out

Professors in the Legislature

The most direct and dramatic way to make faculty views prevail in state government, where most of the funding and policy for higher education originates, is to elect faculty to the legislature. The United Faculty of Florida (UFF) recognized this when we helped elect three of our members to the Florida House of Representatives in November. We already have one member in the state senate and we plan to send another to the senate in 2010. (See December Advocate page 4.)

This makes a critical difference in what kind of debate legislators hear before they vote. When I testify in education hearings, speaking for the 20,000 faculty the UFF represents in the state, I am given three minutes to make arguments. I make a series of bullet points, tell a story to illustrate the argument, and drive home the conclusion. Sometimes there are questions that give me time to expand on my testimony. Sometimes the process gets enough media attention to dramatize the issue—but not always.

The dynamic is different when a faculty member sits on the committee taking testimony. This legislator will comment on what I have said, illustrate the truth of it from personal experience in higher education, and finish with a question directed to me that draws other legislators into the debate. Because of an unwritten protocol that legislators defer to the experience of other legislators when discussing issues, legislators pay attention to what is said.

Suddenly the testimony a faculty member  gives becomes a live issue debated by legislators, and they often want to know more details from me before making their decision. In part, this is because they see the press suddenly focusing on the “live” issue, too. It becomes a real debate, not just an exercise. They understand that the fate of faculty and students hangs in the balance. If a student testifies too, it reinforces the message and stimulates students to contact legislators.

Let me be clear: this may not mean more money for
higher education. But if there is a bill that will cause damage to higher education or the faculty, the extended testimony and coverage of the issue can create problems for the bill’s sponsor, which means it will not come to a vote on the floor.

In the last legislative session, this is how we stopped a bill that would have stripped the Board of Governors of policymaking authority and given that authority to legislators, who could have created any policies they wanted to for the state’s universities.

Tom Auxter is a philosophy professor at the University of Florida and president of United Faculty of Florida (NEA/AFT), representing 20,000 faculty members at 11 universities and eight community colleges. Contact him at tauxter@aol.com.

 

 

 




Search NEA Higher Ed


I'd like to say!

Alexander Stanoyevitch, writing in the Fall 2008 Thought & Action, (“Controlling Grade Inflation”) cites the need to “control [the] epidemic spread of grade inflation.” But just as grades have been increasing, so has the use of non-tenured faculty, who now make up the majority of the nation’s teaching faculty.

Stanoyevitch cites the “correlation between grades that instructors assign and the popularity of those instructors.” For non-tenured faculty, the desire to be “popular” is rooted in a desire for job protection, as student evaluations are often pivotal in determining re-hire.

Bargaining contract language that provides job security for non-tenured, contingent faculty would lessen their need to be popular.

Stanoyevitch also suggests that faculty pressed for time might be more lenient with grades to avoid time-consuming arguments. For non-tenured faculty whose poverty-level income often forces them to hold multiple jobs, time is even more of an issue. A solution here would be to bargain paid preparation time and office hours for the non-tenured.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe that employing non-tenured faculty to “just teach” makes no impact on the integrity of the educational system, or that we don’t need to address root causes.

—Jack Longmate
Olympic College (WA)

Share your opinion
Write to the editor at: Clehane@nea.org


   ^ Back to Top
 

NEA 1201 16TH Street, NW Washington, DC 20036  |  Tel. 202.833.4000
Privacy Statement | Report problems to: HEwebmaster@nea.org