PART-TIMERS

“Safe Space” meetings allow part-time faculty to share experiences and stories with other adjuncts

by Annie Corbett, Cañada College and Skyline College, Psychology

On September 10 and October 14, Suji Venkataraman, Skyline College Education/Child Development part-time professor and Annie Corbett, Cañada College and Skyline College Psychology part-time professor, hosted adjunct faculty-only “Safe Space” meetings for part-time faculty to talk about their lived experiences and to share their stories. What became evident fairly quickly was the immense pain and anguish shared amongst the adjunct faculty who opted to participate. Some of the many prevailing themes included: the struggle to afford health insurance, the lack of transparency when interviewing for full-time positions (not being selected-denied feedback), feeling “othered”, and an overall feeling of exhaustion having to cobble together a living income in one of the most expensive areas in the country.

Many SMCCD adjuncts feel frustrated that they haven’t had a fair chance for a full-time position after years of part-time teaching

Participants vocalized through tears the frustration of being qualified to teach classes as an adjunct for many years, but not getting selected for full-time employment time and time again. The anger, rage, disappointment and hopelessness were a common feeling. Not understanding the process, the complete lack of transparency, feeling as if the person who is going to be hired has already been selected, and that interviewing other candidates is just a formality. This feeling was very prevalent with adjuncts who had been with the district over five years and had interviewed multiple times for full-time positions. The utter lack of feedback after the interview process was one of the worst aspects of this struggle, as the adjuncts are hungry for information on how they can improve their chances for full-time employment.

Most adjuncts at “Safe Space” meetings struggle to pay for health insurance

Most participants voiced an incredible struggle to be able to afford health insurance privately, and that the $1500 offered twice annually was simply not enough, and actually did not put a dent into their private health care costs. A few vocalized a complete inability to afford private insurance and were uninsured.

Difficulties juggling classes at multiple districts

Participants expressed exhaustion, by having to travel to different school districts to be able to afford to live, pay rent, utilities, etc., and stated they loved teaching their students, but struggle with having to juggle so many classes to just make ends meet. They mentioned the possibility of having to leave the area for an area more affordable.

Feeling unvalued leads adjuncts to give up on participation

Another overall theme was feeling “othered”. They don’t feel valued, their input isn’t asked, they can’t get compensated for professional development efforts – and some just give up. They give up going to meetings, give up providing their input, and give up doing anything else but survive. The adjunct faculty in duel-enrollment are left out even more, as they cannot even participate in flex days since the high schools are not closed the same day SMCCD is for flex days.

At the closing of each “Safe Space”, the adjuncts who came to share their voice stated they felt heard, felt as if they weren’t alone, and that they were united in their struggle for living wages, benefits, and other concerns.

Suji and Annie plan on holding these “Safe Spaces” monthly, so look out for the invitation! The next Adjunct Safe Space will be held Tuesday, November 10th, at 3 p.m. For more information, please contact Annie (corbetta@smccd.edu) or Suji (venkataramans@smccd.edu).

PART-TIMERS

AFT survey reveals some snapshots of working conditions for part-time faculty in our district

AFT 1493 surveyed district part-time faculty the week of October 12 – 16 to find out more about the working conditions and contexts for SMCCD adjunct faculty and their experiences and concerns regarding their work. We also asked full-time faculty who had previously worked as part-timers to complete a separate survey that compared their experiences of full-time and part-time work. We received responses from 179 part-time faculty members and 98 full-timers. We are currently analyzing the data and plan to publish a full report from both surveys in the next issue of The Advocate, but we want to give readers some initial snapshots of part-timers’ responses to key questions in the survey here.

Number of courses adjuncts teach inside SMCCD

Almost a third of the part-timers who responded to the survey are currently teaching two classes in SMCCD. A slightly smaller percentage—29%–are teaching one class in the district and almost 20% are teaching three classes. A little over 3% are teaching four or more classes while 17.5% are not teaching this semester.

How many courses are you currently teaching at SMCCD colleges?

About 45% of SMCCD adjuncts teach classes outside the district

About 55% (98) of the part-time faculty respondents are only teaching at SMCCD this semester while 45% (79) are teaching at least one class outside the district. Of the 45% who are teaching outside our district, about 28% (22) are teaching one outside class, 24% (19) are teaching two outside classes, about 20% (16) are teaching three outside classes, 10% (8) are teaching four classes outside SMCCD and almost 18% (14) are teaching five or more courses outside of those they teach in our district!

How many courses are you teaching outside SMCCD?

About 63% of SMCCD adjuncts do NOT have a regular, permanent job outside of faculty work

While many administrators and community members assume that most adjuncts have stable employment with benefits outside of education, about 63% of the part-time faculty survey respondents do not have a regular permanent job outside of their faculty employment and only about 16% actually have full-time jobs outside of their academic work.

Do you have a regular, permanent job outside your faculty employment?

Over 60% of SMCCD adjuncts will look for work elsewhere if pay is not significantly increased soon

In response to the question: “How likely would you be to seek employment at other districts instead of SMCCD if your pay does not change significantly over the next five years?”, over 60% said that it was very likely or somewhat likely they would look to leave the district unless there is a significant improvement in their pay from SMCCD.

How likely would you be to seek employment at other districts instead of SMCCD if your pay does not change significantly over the next five years?

Look for a more complete report of all of the data and comments from both the part-time and full-time working conditions survey in the next issue.

What Would 85% Parity Mean to You?

We asked some part-time faculty members what it would mean to them if the district paid them 85% parity (percentage of full-time faculty salary rates for equivalent loads.)

“85% Pay Parity would show that the district understands that teacher’s working conditions are student’s learning conditions. By investing in part time faculty, the district would be directly supporting their most important constituents, the STUDENTS, by making material improvements to the working conditions of 70% of the instructors within the institution.”
— Timothy Rottenberg, Part-Time Professor of U.S. Government, Skyline Middle College

“As an adjunct trying to cobble together a living income in one of the most expensive areas of the country, I currently work three jobs, all part-time, and none offer health insurance. For me, obtaining 85% parity means I will be able to afford to keep my current health insurance after seeing a $200 premium increase effective January 1, 2021. As a high-risk individual during COVID – it’s absolutely essential that I am able to keep my current insurance, as decreasing my coverage would cripple my family in the event of an emergency”.
—Annie Corbett, Part-Time Professor of Psychology, Cañada and Skyline

“Receiving 85% parity equals receiving respect for the work I do for my students at Skyline College. If addressing my adjunct colleagues and me as the ‘backbone’ of Skyline College and the District is valuable, then providing 85% parity is indeed the actual proof to be considered as the backbone of the institution.”
—Suji Venkataraman, Part-Time Professor of Early Childhood Education, Skyline

“With 85% parity, it would mean that I could reduce my workload across the various districts and colleges where I work—perhaps even letting go of some of my regular assignments—because I would earn a living wage from one district. It would allow me to have deeper engagement with my students and my colleagues here in this district, and more time to spend with my loved ones.”
—Anonymous SMCCD part-timer

STUDENT ACTIVISM: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

50 years ago: Anti-war movement comes to Skyline

This is the second in a series of three articles looking back at events at each of our three colleges fifty years ago as the anti-Vietnam War movement swept college campuses around the country. The first article, focused on Cañada College, ran in the May 2020 Advocate; a third article planned for 2021 will focus on student activism at CSM during 1967-1969. (CSM student activism during that period was also described in great detail by SF State faculty member Jason Ferreira’s article, “From College Readiness to Ready for Revolution!”)

by Jessica Silver-Sharp, AFT 1493 Secretary & Skyline College librarian

As we encourage our own students to speak out and take action for social justice, it seems timely to present a second article about the history of student activism in our district, this time at Skyline College, in the first year of its founding, 1969-70.

Even before the Kent State massacre on May 4, 1970, many Skyline students were voicing their opposition to US involvement in Vietnam, and of course, the draft. The first draft lottery was held toward the end of the college’s first semester on December 1, 1969; so male students entering Skyline in 1969 knew that once they graduated–or if they didn’t transfer within two years–they’d have to deal with the prospect of mandatory military service.

The killing of student protesters at Kent State had the effect of immediately mobilizing students across the country, including key groups of students across our three campuses, to join the largest student strike in American history at that time. In response to anticipated campus violence, Governor Reagan ordered classes canceled for four days, beginning May 7 (New York Times, May 7, 1970). Many Skyline students considered this an affront. In fact, defiant drama students continued on-campus rehearsals for Inherit the Wind, criticizing the Governor (and former actor) for throwing “the curtain down on academic freedom in California’s state and community colleges and universities.” (Skyline Press, May 13, 1970).

The class cancellations mobilized many students and faculty in the district. On May 6, according to the Skyline Press newspaper, Skyline students called a mass meeting. Skyline’s first president Philip Garlington attended and “Students for a Strike,” led by student Dan Tobias, urged the 600 plus students in attendance to begin boycotting classes once they resumed.

A mass meeting called by Skyline students on May 6, 1970, was attended by 600 including Skyline’s first president Philip Garlington

While no signs of pending violence appear in the reports, Garlington announced to the students gathered, “Violence on this campus isn’t a viable solution to the national problems facing us today.” (Skyline Press, May 13, 1970).

Anti-war message supported by Trustees and Academic Senate

Later that same evening, a group of “more than 500” students and faculty from all three campuses traveled to CSM where a televised Board of Trustees meeting saw “student and faculty spokesmen…demand[ing] to know what the board “as a governing body” was planning to do.” By the end of the evening the BOT presented a resolution, apparently prepared earlier in the day, “denouncing the national government’s policies in Vietnam and Cambodia…”  (Skyline Press, May 13, 1970)

On May 7, with classes canceled but all three campuses apparently open, Skyline’s faculty senate passed their resolution of support: “We therefore support, in principle, the Skyline student strike to end that dedicated action may take place, both on the campus and extending into the community.” Students spent the day organizing. The next day, May 8, a contingent of Skyline and Cañada students joined a CSM student-organized peace march that was also attended by faculty. The march began at CSM and ended at San Mateo City Hall.

On May 8, 1970 Skyline and Cañada students joined a peace march organized by CSM students.
[Courtesy, CSM Photo Archives, Bill Rundberg]

Following the weekend, a May 11 memo by the Student Strike Committee announced their intentions: “We, the striking students at Skyline College DO NOT wish to shut down the college. Rather, we wish to re-direct it so that it may immediately become an EFFECTIVE INFLUENCE on the pressing international and social problems which are facing us today.” During the week of May 11-15, faculty held a teach-in style symposium with a published schedule of lectures taking place daily. An all-college memo on May 8 announced the schedule including “Mr. Yuman speaks on non-violence” and “A short film, Viet Nam — how we got in. How we can get out,” to be shown “every hour” on Friday.

Notably, the committee of striking Skyline students were respectful of the first ever Black Culture Week, organized by the first Black Student Union and also planned for May 11-15 but postponed until May 13, making sure that their events did not overlap.

Skyline students were split on whether to strike

Local newspapers reporting on this week and the week that followed indicate that perhaps more so than at Cañada College, Skyline students were split on whether to strike. It’s unknown how many students decided not to attend classes. The college’s Associated Student Body President Morrison Browne, a tall black student and a charismatic leader, urged in his speech that for the council to be successful “next year’s student council must fight apathy… and become more oriented towards political issues facing colleges.” (Skyline Press, May 13, 1970).

While it’s difficult to know how college administrators felt about the campus situation without existing interviews to draw from, their main focus was on preparing for the official college dedication on May 17, which appears to have gone off without a hitch.

More Questions than Answers

What were the effects of this early student and faculty activism at Skyline? To what degree were students influenced by the 1968 Third World Liberation Front Strike at San Francisco State? How many students and faculty were actually involved? How did these events in the college’s first year affect its course or emerging culture? A San Mateo Times article from November 1970 shows student strike organizer (then Student Body President) Dan Tobias appealing his expulsion from Skyline College. Were others punished as well? As is often the case, this initial research has perhaps raised more questions than answers.

Student Researchers at Work

At Skyline College, three honors students are examining the events of May 1970 with a goal of putting Skyline on the University of Washington’s “Strike Map” (where you’ll find Cañada College) as well as raising consciousness among their peers, and of course, learning to use primary sources for historical research. Perhaps they will draw some parallels to today’s protest movements as well. With interviews planned and more sources turning up every week or so, the students will report more information later in the semester in the form of student newspaper articles and research papers.

What Do You Know?

With libraries and archives closed during COVID, and early Senate records and Board of Trustees minutes not accessible (or location unknown), access to archival sources has been very limited. If you have information or knowledge of sources that can shed light on the Skyline College student strike of 1970, please share. If you have students interested in researching this topic, you may direct them to this library research guide, in progress, where sources and information are being collected. I’m also available to support students from any campus in their research.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

Where labor rights and social justice meet: AFT launches Anti-Oppression Committee (AOC)

By Rika Yonemura-Fabian, AFT 1493 Skyline Chapter Co-Chair & Doniella Maher, AFT 1493 Cañada Chapter Co-Chair

A recent study published in the American Journal of Political Science shows that union membership lowers the racial and gender bias among white union members. White workers who belong to a union show a greater capacity to work with racially diverse colleagues and support policies that benefit African American communities.

The struggle for labor rights and the fight for racial, gender and other forms of social justice may be intrinsically connected as this study shows–but only if we are intentional about it. How can we advance the voices and interests of faculty of color? How do we fight the culture of silence toward gendered micro-aggressions? How are the rights of faculty with disabilities to be addressed? How can we equip our union with more robust and intentional efforts and a structure to address these issues that many of our colleagues face in our workplaces?

Driven by these questions, AFT1493 launched the Anti-Oppression Committee. The committee was initially formed at the AFT-organized teach-in, “Social Justice Unionism in Practice: From Part-Time Pay Parity to Anti-Oppression Organizing.” As a team of rank-and-file members, students, and AFT officers, we want to facilitate the recognition among our members that social justice unionism requires going beyond “bread and butter” wage and benefits issues. Labor rights are inextricably linked to social justice and the realization of fair working conditions for all members in our union is only possible if we build our solidarity through active education and conversation on, and actions against, anti-blackness, misogyny, ableism, ageism, cis- and heteronormativity, and other systems of oppression.

Class size is a social justice issue!

As a committee, we are pursuing our first campaign, Class Size is a Social Justice Issue! In response to the wave of BLM protests and uprisings, the District has launched a series of initiatives on social justice. These are all positive efforts, but we believe that they have not done enough about one thing that they have control over: smaller class sizes. It is no secret that connection through regular, meaningful contact with the instructor is one of the most obvious ingredients for the success and retention of our students of color, LGBTQ+ students, working-class students, and students who come from other places of historical and structural marginalization. In the current virtual learning and teaching environment, class size has additional importance as a condition for our students’ success.

The committee is organizing to ensure smaller class sizes are addressed in the Spring MOU and beyond.  Our first step is to bring a discussion on class sizes and the pedagogical benefits to the District Academic Senate. The issue is on the agenda for the November 9th District Senate meeting where we hope to work with the Senate to advance an effective policy for  improving pedagogy by reducing class sizes in our District.

Small class sizes make the learning experiences of students more meaningful and our students deserve the best. (See readings on the effects of class size on online instruction.) The District has been using the rhetoric of access to justify current large class sizes. But at what cost? What are the educational effects on our students who have felt marginalized in higher education systems?

Fighting for smaller class sizes isn’t just about the numbers either. It is a recognition that the kind of teaching necessary to close gender, race, and preparation achievement gaps depends on investment in student-centered teaching that incorporates engaging and innovating strategies.

This class is too large to enable the instructor to engage struggling students

If you are interested in more information or in joining the committee to work with us, please contact Doniella Maher (maher@aft1493.org), Michael Hoffman (hoffman@aft1493.org) or Rika Yonemura-Fabian (fabian@aft1493.org.)