me: >> The article defends the adjuncts, not the tenured. There are good (if >> self.-interested) arguments for the latter to support the former: if the >> substitutes for the tenured are more expensive to hire...
raghu: > Yeah, like the Tea Partiers who oppose immigration because they love > low-income black people and worry for their jobs. that's a poor analogy. The tenured professor's support for the adjuncts is more like an established labor union supporting a struggling one. Back in the day, I would have said "the UAW supporting the UFW," but those organizations (like other labor unions outside of the crafts and the government sector) have largely faded. Anyway, if the university pays adjuncts better, no only does it attract better teachers but it's less likely that people further up the hierarchy will be replaced by the cheap labor that adjuncts provide. In practice a certain amount of self-interest bolsters efforts at solidarity. -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
