Secure Employment? What a concept!

Something at the forefront of most all TRT faculty concerns here at Hopkins is the security of our positions here (The HFA TRT Committee has evidence of this).  We are, generally speaking, career scholars devoted to our cause and have built our professional lives into the departments and programs that we call our local communities.  Yet we live on rather short term contracts that can hang like a shadow over our careers, especially near the borders of the contract lengths.  And we are subject to periodic reviews for contract renewal that are, again generally speaking, poorly designed, locally administered and subject to local departmental politics.  In fact, the contract lengths themselves are mostly locally managed by our chairs or directors.  This gives many of us even less comfort, due to the local and sometimes volatile politics within our local groups.  Add to that our reticence to actually take a stand within our community, explore more controversial issues, or even engage in departmental politics at all, and our careers can feel tentative and fragile.  We live within a system where we are really not sure about the longevity of our professional lives, and yet, we work side by side with colleagues who are immunized from any and all such worries.  

What gives with a university system where some have near total job security (tenure) and others live year by year, term by term, even as they enjoy an institutional memory which is often many times that of their same immunized colleagues ?!?

Many of us here at Hopkins may not yet be aware that the two terms "non-tenure track faculty" and "TRT faculty" are not synonymous everywhere: 

Teaching and Associate Teaching Professors have "tenure" in the entire University of California system of 10 campuses, with its almost 11,000 full time faculty.  

I use quotes on the word "tenure" since the UC system does not call it that.  In practice, though, they view it as equivalent.  Teaching faculty can attain a Security of Employment (SoE).  It is offered to teaching faculty at the levels of Lecturer (Associate Teaching Professor)) and Senior Lecturer (Teaching Professor).  Collectively they are referred to as Lecturers with Security of Employment, or LSOEs.  And, in addition, one level below this is Lecturer PSoE, carrying a Potential for Security of Employment (would that be the non-tenure track equivalent of an Assistant Professor?) 

Policies regarding the ranks that carry SoE can be found here, from the Office of the President of the University of California.

Also, a great FAQ is here.  But there is a ton of info out there.  

Some highlights:

• LSOE faculty are expected to do much more than excellent teaching. They have leadership responsibility, not only as teachers, but as facilitators and initiators of instructional development, curriculum design, course structure, teaching methods, new technologies, and coordinating a spectrum of teaching activities. They play a leadership role in teaching in the departments and their disciplines.
• Full-time LSOEs... have the same rights and privileges in the departments and on the campus as Senate Faculty with professorial titles. The primary difference between LSOEs and LRF [ladder-rank faculty] is in the expectation of research and creative activity, required for LRF but not LSOEs. LSOEs are evaluated for their educational leadership and professional achievements. LSOEs and LRF both are evaluated on teaching and University and public service. 
• LSOE’s have security of employment, which is analogous to tenure (see Standing Order of the Regents 103.10: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/so10310.html)

Seems rather obvious, no?

Given that the main feature of tenure is to allow the academic freedom of expression in one's field to ensure and secure the creative process is safe from political repercussions, why is this only extended to research-oriented faculty and not also teaching-oriented faculty?  

Why do researchers enjoy freedom of expression in their research AND in the classroom, along with the accompanying job security, but teachers don't even have this security (of employment) in the classroom?  

I am so curious to the answer to that....  Shall we ask?

   

The Sabbatical thing?

 Access to professional development opportunities is a hallmark of most all career-oriented positions in almost any multi-tiered organization.  In the corporate world, managers are always looking for the ambitious within their ranks to excel at their duties and to look ahead for more responsibility, better skill sets, and the idea that where they are now is not where they want to be in the future.  Built into the culture of a healthy working environment are opportunities to learn new skills, take on more tasks, and/or assume more duties than the current job description.  And the truly constructive and nurturing work environments even provide temporary relief from current duties in order to seek new skills and abilities.  The dual reasons of (1) it is good for the individual to keep from going stale in one's job (and one's mind?), to the notion that (2) it is good for an organization if its workers want to ascend the corporate ladder, provide a sort-of win-win scenario of aiding both the worker and the organization. Facilitating the ability of workers to strive for more in their lives and careers, while adding an efficiency to the system whereby as managers leave positions, others can step in immediately to take their place, would seem a no-brainer, really.  Workers with a healthy growth (personal and corporate) mindset add value to the organization when that mindset is met with avenues to put that growth mindset into practice.  

One can easily say that providing access to promotions within an organization is vital to the morale of an organization.  But the idea of providing access to promotion must also include providing access to the opportunities to advance one's skill sets and provide the means to attain the skills necessary for that next level.  Providing a promotion structure without the opportunities to develop oneself professionally means not providing any meaningful access to promotion.  An organization set up that way inhibits growth, stifles morale, and undercuts the productivity of its workers.

Within the Academy, the idea of providing time away from the typical duties of faculty so that members can take the time to focus on research, or other professional growth activities, has been encoded into the profession:  the sabbatical.  Offered in a timely fashion as earned over an interval of years, it provides the space needed to explore new research opportunities, visit other places without the burden of home duties of service and teaching, and generally to achieve relief of the things taxing one's time for the benefit of the person's professional health and well-being.  It is a benefit to the organization to offer its members periods of time off from their constant contributions to the day-to-day operations of the organization, so that the members can develop themselves professionally, turn a job into a career, stay fresh and up-to-date and contributory within their discipline, and make their name a part of the conversation in the various circles outside of the local academy.  

So why is this vital and beneficial practice only afforded to the 60% or so faculty here that are Tenure-line?  Why do TRT faculty, striving for promotion within the teaching or research ranks, looking for ways to professionally develop themselves, see no way to find relief from their high teaching loads and advising duties?  Why is there no way to solicit this relief from the Chairs and the Deans, allowing TRT faculty to visit other places, write a book, direct or produce a movie, or go on that dig (digs cannot come to the university, eh?) How are they to build their career into the fabric of their professional discipline when they are faced with no relief from their 100% effort herein, semester-in and semester-out?  

I have been the direct receiver of the response to this question, "Well, that is what summer is for, right?"  

Hardly....