Recently, @MirandaMerklein, my friend and sister adjunct activist here in New Mexico sent me this disturbing article from the Albuquerque Journal on NM adjuncts
|Jessica, right, and other SFCC adjuncts, CEW2013|
In response to the January 5th article, “Part-timers face ‘double standard,’ it is not reasonable to consider that a “double standard” is acceptable for any profession. Simply because some unknown percentage of the group has other secure employment does not mean it is OK to de-professionalize the entire group.
Expecting people who have invested time and money in earning graduate degrees to use their expertise in “teaching positions [that] provide little in the way of pay and no employee benefits,” is unethical and creates a two-tiered system where budgets are cut on the back of one of the fastest growing, most educated, precarious labor pool in the U.S.
What message does this send students taking on exorbitant debt to earn their degrees, especially in a state that consistently rates amongst the highest for functionally illiterate adults and the lowest for high school graduation and college matriculation?
Would you expect a dentist to work for “lunch money” because they love what they do? Why is it acceptable to expect college professors to teach for less than minimum wage and no benefits because they have a satisfying profession intellectually? What does it say about us as a nation if we expect the majority of the professoriate to be working for “lunch money?”
This article is painfully biased against addressing a key labor issue that is destroying the higher education system in our country. To suggest that someone is “complaining” about not being able to be hired full-time while they are already working full-time hours for less than minimum wage is beyond disrespectful. Shame on the Albuquerque Journal for minimizing the economic reality and lived struggles of a large part of New Mexico’s work force.As submitted by Jessica Lawless, images, emphasis and a few more links added...
PS... and not the Journal's "first offence" either. This business friendly rag is a repeat offender: see TS O'Sullivan's April 13 blog post, "While CNM tramples on free-speech rights, Journal turns its back"