Although nontenure-track academic title holders theoretically have a voice through the EA, that body is overwhelmingly made up of nonacademic staff. It may make more sense for this group to express themselves in other ways: possibly through the Senate or possibly through a brand new assembly. On the other hand maybe things are fine as is. We would like to learn what you think.
For a more informed view take a look at the Senate Agendas This will help you better understand how that body spends its time.
Please share you insights below. Posted comments are anonymous unless you identify yourself in the comment itself.
I’ve been in my current position as a Senior Lecturer in A&S for over a decade, and another decade before that in a variety of Visiting positions. I’m well published, internationally known and active, and participate in teaching, mentoring, advising, undergrad and grad admissions and recruitment, and even program/department leadership roles when needed. But still have to deal with being slapped down occasionally, and looked down upon (or simply overlooked) more often, because I’m “not faculty”.
I had not commented previously because I have a hard time imagining that the structure might actually change to fairly reflect the academic contributions of we who are “not faculty”. But I’m also not happy with the unfairnesses of the status quo, and after reading the comments here decided to add my voice.
I think that regular academic staff should be part of the “faculty” — both teaching and research, as long as engaged in the same kinds of work and responsibilities — and thus participate in the Faculty Senate. Visiting appointments are a different matter; while affected by policy they do not have a “permanent” commitment to and from the University (it may be an aspiration, but it’s not there, by definition). There should be representation in the Faculty Senate for visitors of all sorts, but I don’t see that as being as desperate a need as for non-“faculty” academics to be accorded due respect and fully integrated into the structures.
But I anticipate retiring in five years or so, and I’ve managed to muddle along thus far. I don’t see the faculty as a group suddenly welcoming us to their ranks, but perhaps with time, and effort, and increasing numbers of NTT people, there might be hope down the road.
I am one of a number of NTT faculty in my college that have promoted discussion of NTT issues over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, we have seen little progress so this solicitation from the Dean of Faculty is a most welcome surprise. In the past, when presenting issues of NTT concern to the tenured faculty, I have found their response to range from dispassionate support to thinly veiled contempt. I would love to believe that that we could be integrated with the Senate but I am skeptical that we would be fully accepted. I support a model with a separate body representing NTT academics and an additional committee within the faculty Senate.
I agree with the majority of the comments posted. I do not think we are adequately represented or involved in the University in the existing structure. Given our numbers and the impact we have on the student body through teaching, mentoring, research, governance in some colleges, and engagement with our alumni, we should have equal representation based on numbers in the Faculty Senate. It does seem to be a very formal body, however, which may not fit as well as we would like. There are unique NTT issues, not the least of which is a relatively derogatory title since it states what we are not but does focus on who we are and our contribution. I would suggest a committee within the Senate for NTT specific issues but it should include tenure track so that they gain a better understanding of the issue we face and the contributions we make.
Thank you for addressing this issue. Here in the veterinary college, the non-tenure track academic titles are at least called faculty and invited to department meeting. Those in the “senior” titles can vote in college faculty meetings. A trend was begun a few years ago to start referring to them as specialty track faculty, rather than non-anything.
The numbers of specialty track faculty as compared to tenure track faculty have steadily increased and the specialty track faculty are doing more and more of the work that has traditionally been performed by tenure track faculty. And yet, the fact that most of the campus does not even call the people in these positions faculty is testament to the poor representation and the little regard for the positions.
The university and its colleges are happy when someone in one of these positions is awarded a grant and brings in precious money, publishes a paper, successfully mentors undergraduate, professional and graduate students to complete programs and assignments, takes on significant teaching roles, and serves in search committees and other forms of academic service. We send specialty track faculty oversees to represent the University, we send them to testify in front of legislative bodies, we ask them to solve difficult academic problems. I can’t imagine why the University as a whole and each college and department would not want to represent the se individuals as faculty with full voting rights. The University needs the input and ideas of specialty track faculty.
In addition, while we want them to continue to do the important work assigned to them, and are really happy when they get grants and mentor graduate students successfully, we put roadblocks in front of them by making them jump through additional hoops to do these things.
and we use confusing job titles that make some funding sources and others think that they are not qualified to do the work we want them to do. Just today, members of my department were asked by senior administration to fill out an annual summary of activities for Cornell Cooperative Extension, just because they have “extension” in their job titles, despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with Cornell Cooperative Extension.
We need to look around and see that it is the 21st century. Things change.
I strongly affirm these thoughts. NTT faculty are effectively devoid of representation. How they are regarded varies widely across our college by department: in some departments they are regarded as faculty in terms of decision-making processes, while in others they have not been asked to attend a single faculty meeting in decades. We need to be entrepreneurial, given that many of us are solely supported on “soft money”, and as such we compete successfully in national funding programs. In the face of this, the only notable change in NTT status has been our college shifting from granting five-year appointments (which always have been predicated on continued funding) to giving five one-year appointments. This sends exactly the wrong message to NTTs. Affirmation of the critical NTT role in research, mentoring, and teaching (among others) is long overdue.
I would suggest that each of the four groups listed under academic professionals elect a representative to the Faculty Senate. The representatives would be eligible to serve on committees but whether they would be full voting members would be up to a vote by the current Faculty Senate members when this was brought up as a bylaws change.
Thank you for raising this issue and for seeking input from us. Currently, we are not adequately represented. In terms of our job descriptions and day-to-day work, I think the Faculty Senate is a better fit for us than the Assembly. I do worry that unless we had proportional representation on the Senate, our concerns would not be addressed. Over the past 10 years, I have served on numerous committees in my unit that purportedly represented the interests of both TT and nonTT faculty but in fact focused only on TT faculty (specifically on helping people get tenure). Lecturers were not included in the program to bring salaries of female faculty to the same level as those of male faculty.
While there are some issues (articulated above) with including NTT faculty in the faculty senate, there are several committees in the faculty senate that directly affect NTT faculty (specifically with regards to education and research policy). Providing a distinct forum for NTT faculty prevents them from having a voice in these committees. Hence it makes the most sense for NTT faculty to have some representation in the faculty senate.
However, if NTT representatives are added to the faculty senate, it also makes sense to add a subcommittee to examine any issues specific to NTT faculty. This would help to ensure that NTT concerns are not overlooked by the larger representation from the tenure/tenure-track faculty.
I think it’s a fundamental fairness issue to have NTT representation in whatever governing body is making the policy decisions that affect our lives and careers-and that would be the faculty senate. At the veterinary college, NTT titles make up half the faculty and perform virtually all of the same functions as TT- research, teaching, advising, committee service, PhD student mentoring, and grant writing. Yet, at the University level we aren’t recognized as faculty, and don’t have voting rights. (Somewhat ironically, John Cleese, like all AD White Professors, would have been accorded full voting rights with his appointment). Women also tend to be concentrated in NTT titles, but are in limited numbers in the tenure lines that control the decision making. It contributes to the feeling on the part of many NTT (and women) that we don’t have equal footing at the University. To borrow a line from Hamilton, we’d like to be in The Room Where it Happens. Thank you for opening up this discussion.
Elizabeth Bunting