Note from the Editor
Benefits, Pensions, and Retiree Health
Plans
under Attack, by David and Patricia Brodsky
Retirees Take Strong Stance against Threat
to
Benefits
Senate Election Results
News of the Chapter: Benefits and
Budgets
Exercise your Rights to Governance
State Funding, Tenure, Contingent Faculty
Examined
at Two Missouri Meetings, by Stuart McAninch
"Culture War Issues," Organizational
Problems
Take Center Stage at National AAUP Meeting, by Stuart McAninch
Food for Thought: Another Look at UMKC's
Shameful
Record on Race and Gender, by Pat Brodsky
Tenure Workshop October 20
The AAUP Chapter at UMKC Serves YOU
Copyright Notice
Dues Information
Back Issues
Due to time constraints, the
Faculty
Advocate was not published during WS 2006. The current issue
features
another major assault on the University, one that occurred in
January.
Three Curators appointed by right-wing Governor Blunt targeted the
retirement
plan and retiree health benefits for possible elimination.
Although
two of the three assailants appeared to have backed off, we are
publishing
these reports as current news, since the issue is unresolved and
renewed
assaults remain a very real threat. Blunt will appoint three more
Curators,
whose term of service will start in 2007.
Benefits, Pensions, and Retiree Health Plans Under Attack
by David and Patricia Brodsky
Three corporatizing members of
the
Board of Curators attempted to pressure UM System President Floyd and
the
rest of the Board to cut benefits and pensions for faculty and staff
and
even to eliminate the retirement system. All three curators were
appointed
by right-wing Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, whose first
"accomplishment"
in office was to slash Medicaid benefits and to promise to phase out
the
system by 2008.
At the January 26-27 Board
meeting
Curators David Wasinger, Doug Russell, and John Carnahan strongly
insisted
on the need to reduce faculty and staff benefits, targeting retirement
above
all. Wasinger called retiree health benefits "overly generous"
and
the retirement system itself a "fossil". By "fossil" Wasinger may
have
been referring to the UM System's defined benefit pension plan.
Curators
Carnahan and Russell declared their intention to lower University
benefits
to the level of the private sector. Carnahan declared, "no one in
my
world gets post-retirement health benefits," and Russell approved of
the
fact that the (pre-retirement) health deductible was much higher in
private
business.
In reality, the level of employee
benefits
and their cost to the university are well below average, regionally and
nationally.
Ken Hutchinson, UM Vice President for Human Resources, told the
Curators
that UM system retirement costs are one-third lower than the average at
comparable
institutions. A pre-Blunt Curator stated in defense of benefits
that
"while salaries at public universities are lower than in the private
sector,
the trade-off has been good benefits" (Kavita Kumar, "UM president
wants
5-7 pct. tuition hike",
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 28, 2006).
University of Missouri salaries
are
also low in the higher education sector. Except for Rolla, they
are
well below the national averages for public PhD granting
institutions.
This is true at all ranks separately and combined, regionally as well
as
nationally, and by gender ("AAUP Annual Report on the Economic Status
of
the Profession 2005-06,"
Academe, Mar-Apr 2006).
The salvos fired by the Blunt
Curator
bloc did not come out of the blue. The ground was prepared ten
days
before the Curator's meeting in a news item about a report on higher
education
published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2006/a/pages/higher_education.html).
Its themes of "productivity" and "cost efficiency" provided an
opportunity
to attack employees and the legitimate missions of the
university.
Among other things, the report recommended abolishing tenure,
deprofessionalizing
the faculty, and reducing instruction to vocational preparation.
It
also favored replacing professional peer-reviewed evaluation with
judgments
made by outside forces (employers, parents, politicians, etc.),
privatizing
and outsourcing services, and decentralizing administration (cf. the
Blue
Ribbon Task Force campaign to abolish the UM system). Along with
the
demise of tenure, professional standards and academic freedom would
disappear.
The report's stated mission--to raise quality while cutting labor
costs--is
impossible in a labor-intensive endeavor like genuine education.
Reduced
labor costs at the university automatically translate into reduced
quality,
increased exploitation, and degraded working conditions.
The connection between the Fed
report
("cost-efficiency") and the agenda of the Blunt Curator bloc at their
meeting
ten days later (cutting employee benefits) was clear. Curator
Russell
was quoted in the news item cited above as agreeing with the report's
message
that higher education should be subjected to the private corporate
model.
His statement was paraphrased as: "because there is no bottom line in
higher
education, there isn't a lot of pressure to adopt cost-saving policies"
(Terry
Ganey, "Fed Critiques Productivity of Higher Ed. Tenure is an
Impediment,"
Columbia Daily Tribune, January 15, 2006;
http://www.showmenews.com/2006/Jan/20060115News008.asp).
The Fed report and the Curator
bloc
are operating in a larger context. Nationally, in the private and
public
sectors, benefits and pensions are being reduced, privatized and
weakened
(Social Security), eliminated (Delphi, United Airlines), or stolen
outright
(Enron et al). Retiree health insurance is being scrapped and
out-of-pocket
costs in Medicare appear to be on the increase. Defined benefit
pension
plans, like the one offered by the UM System, are being terminated by
employers
and replaced with defined contribution plans. In the private
sector
the latter are designated by the tax code as 401(k), while in the
non-profit
sector, including higher education, they are called 403(b).
Several factors motivate the
campaign
to replace defined benefit with defined contribution plans. The
latter
costs the employer less, or nothing at all, thus raising corporate
profits.
Of equal, if not greater importance, defined contribution plans are
products
of the ideological war on social insurance, which shifts risks from
large
pools of employees to individuals. Defined benefit plans agree to
pay
a stated amount, based on salary and years of service. Benefit
levels
are not tied directly to the plan's investment gains or losses.
And
they are insured by a federal government agency, the Pension Benefit
Guarantee
Corporation. Defined contribution plans, by contrast, require
employees
to make investments in their own individual accounts, whose market
performance
determines the level of benefits they will receive. Neither the
amounts
accumulated or paid out in benefits are guaranteed, since their value
fluctuates
with market changes. And there is no insurance to protect against
losses.
Defined contribution plans
combine
higher risks and investment fees with lower benefits. As Notre
Dame
University economist, Teresa Ghilarducci, writes: "Twenty years of
experience
with 401(k) plans reveal that workers will never be able to accumulate
enough
assets in individual accounts and choose payout options that will
provide
a steady stream of income for life after retirement" ("The End of
Retirement,"
Monthly Review, 58.1 (May 2006): 13). If the current UM
defined
benefit plan (Wasinger's "fossil") were to be replaced by a defined
contribution
plan, UM employees would face an impoverished future, and some might
not
be able to afford to retire at all.
In addition, weakening or elimination of health care insurance
typically
forces people with high medical bills into bankruptcy, or into choosing
between
food and rent on the one hand and health care and medications on the
other,
even for those with professional or middle management level
incomes.
Consumer Reports profiles the medical bankruptcy of a financial
officer
retired from Time-Warner and explains: "Bankruptcies among people 65
and
older, still relatively rare, are the fastest growing of any age
group.
In 2001, 100,000 such Americans filed for bankruptcy, more than double
the
rate in 1991. Debt in households headed by someone 65 or older
increased
150 percent in the 10 years ending in 2002 to an average of about
$20,000.
[...] people ages 55 to 64 now heading toward retirement are likely to
suffer
greater difficulties." One study forecasts that for the
generation
of those about to retire there will be a "$45 billion retirement-income
shortfall
by 2030" ("Retire in the black,"
Consumer Reports, January
2005, p.
32).
To make up for this shortfall, as
Ghilarducci
writes, "Americans will turn to ... contingent, low-paying jobs" (p.
13)
that require "more intense concentration and keen eyesight and involve
more
stress" (p. 15). But seniors find "jobs harder to get, more
difficult
to perform, and unemployment duration much longer" (p. 25). The
elimination
of retirement as an expectation and an entitlement belongs to the same
ideological
war, which is grounded in the principle of coerced labor.
Employees
who can't afford to retire are forced to work until they drop.
A similar impoverishment, of
course,
could be achieved by slashing the current level of benefits in the UM
defined
benefit plan, for ideological or financial reasons. For example,
if
the UM retirement system, in its current or future form, were to be
underfunded,
undersubscribed, or sufficiently fragmented to minimize economies of
scale,
it could collapse, or be terminated in the future as unviable.
The
elimination of defined benefit plans nationwide is having the same
weakening
effect on the retirement system as a whole. A weakened retirement
system
would damage the pensions of current retirees as well as of those still
employed.
The replacement of the current
system
with defined contributions plans might be imposed with or without a
transition
plan or a grandfathering provision for those already vested. A
"two-tiered
model" is also a strong possibility, dividing employees into privileged
and
unprivileged categories (e.g. current vs. future employees, vested vs.
unvested,
senior vs. junior). The two-tiered model undermines potential
employee
solidarity by stirring the resentment of the unprivileged groups and
the
complacency of the privileged.
The divide-the-generations
strategy
helped pave the way for the corporate takeover of health care a decade
ago,
which made its appeal to the young. Younger and healthier people
were
told it was unfair that their medical premiums paid for older and
sicker
people, whose care requires a greater share of funding. Provoking
the
resentment of young workers is likewise a tactic to discredit the
Social
Security retirement system. By contrast, the
divide-the-generations
strategy of the two-tiered retirement model is pitched to those with
seniority,
bribing older and longer-term employees to abandon their newer and
younger
colleagues. Because it is a corporate favorite, with multiple
disadvantages
for employees, the divide-and-rule two-tiered model should be rejected
unconditionally
by all UM faculty and staff.
The report published by the
Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis was entitled "Stop Paying More for Less: Ways
to
Boost Productivity in Higher Education." The "cost" of retirement
plans
to a great extent is a red herring, since the campaign to eliminate
defined
benefit plans is mainly driven by corporatizing ideology, with the
anticipation
of profiting through high investment fees charged to individualized
retirement
accounts. High fees are the main reason that pension
accumulations
and payouts in defined contribution plans are inadequate. In
addition,
individual accounts are charged retail fees, while wholesale fees are
offered
to group plans. The same motivations and payoffs can be seen in
the
ideological drive to privatize Social Security.
Attacks on benefits belong to the
much
wider ideological war corporatizing public institutions and diminishing
or
terminating social services. Instead of socially organized
services
with their economies of scale and broad outreach, isolated individuals
are
forced to pay for services out of pocket, and those who can't afford
them
must do without. While the war is intensifying in Missouri, it
should
be noted that other states are strengthening social services.
Some,
for example, have extended health and even retirement benefits to
part-time
instructors, who previously were declared ineligible to qualify for
them.
The immediate context of the
assault
on benefits is the long history of inadequate state funding of higher
education
in Missouri. While Blunt proposed a 2% increase in higher
education
appropriations, it still fell well short of meeting the university's
current
financial obligations, much less supporting future improvements.
Floyd's
promise to cut administration by 10% could not by itself compensate for
the
shortfall. Years of miserly appropriations forced him to propose
raising
tuition again as the only other effective method of closing the gap
between
expenses and income.
Because Floyd indexed proposed
tuition
increases to the size of state appropriations, the higher the state
support,
the lower the tuition increase would be. But the Curator bloc
wanted
faculty and staff benefits to be cut in addition to, or instead of,
increases
in tuition. Its strategy was to pit students (tuition) against
faculty
(benefits). At the January Curators meeting, Wasinger declared
that
"students are being asked to bear all the misery ... I think the
misery
ought to be shared."
But neither employees nor
students
should be punished for historically stingy state appropriations and
biased
funding structures that consistently shortchange higher
education.
This sorry history has earned Missouri a consistent ranking in the
bottom
five states in the nation in per capita funding of public higher
education.
By contrast, Kansas is ranked 11th from the top. Instead of
students
and employees "sharing the misery" (as Wasinger suggested)-- that is,
being
maneuvered into fighting one another over their inadequate
portions--Missouri
public universities should receive their adequate share of state
appropriations,
as the Missouri Constitution requires.
Consistent with their track
record,
there was no substantive reporting about the assault on benefits in the
Kansas
City media. Crucial material and links to other sources could be
found
only in stories published by the
Columbia Daily Tribune and
St.
Louis Post-Dispatch.
In mid-March, the AAUP chapter
sent
out an e-mail appeal to faculty, staff, and retirees, and asked
recipients
to forward the appeal to employees on other UM campuses. The
appeal
requested they send messages to President Floyd, the Curators, and
members
of the Missouri Assembly before the March 23 Curators meeting.
One
paragraph of the sample message read:
"Neither retirees nor current
employees
nor new hires should have to face insecure or inadequate pension
benefits.
It is just as essential to maintain an adequate level of health
benefits,
for employees and retirees alike, and especially for those in ill
health.
And an attractive benefit package, along with decent salaries, is
crucial
to recruiting and retaining quality faculty and staff at the University
of
Missouri. The strength, health, and quality of the University
depend
on its competitiveness in these areas."
Although students did not receive
the
AAUP e-mail appeal, the assault on benefits has major consequences for
them
as well. The quality of their education depends on the quality of
the
faculty, and on the working and learning environments supported by
quality
staff. Recruiting quality faculty and staff requires the
incentive
of good benefits, since salaries are substandard. Students thus
have
a short-term stake in opposing assaults on benefits. But they
also
have a long-term stake, since they will eventually enter the workforce
themselves.
Whether they work in the private or public sectors, attacks on benefits
at
a major employer like the University of Missouri will drive down the
level
of benefits throughout the state. By defending the benefits of
university
employees now, they will be defending their own later on.
Later reports indicated that
Floyd,
UM System administrators, and the six pre-Blunt Curators were solid in
their
defense of the current retirement system and employee and retirement
health
benefits. In addition, two of the three members of the Blunt bloc
appear
to have modified their positions. Nevertheless, it would not be
surprising
if the assaults were renewed next year, after three more Blunt
appointees
join the bloc. If the bloc remains ideologically stable, it will
enjoy
a two-thirds majority on the Board.
Additional recommendations in the
Federal
Reserve report should also be noted. They call for "strong
leadership"
typical of "the business world" to defeat anticipated "resistance or
even
legal challenges from the various professional organizations and
associations
that support faculty and administrators." UM employees should be
cognizant
of the fact that business world "leadership" has included mass layoffs,
lockouts,
and arbitrary firings, theft of pensions, breaking of contracts,
destruction
of employee organizations such as labor unions, and worse. Thus
UM
employees and retirees should monitor the situation and be prepared to
express
their opinions on short notice.
In conclusion, we should remember
that
faculty activism successfully ended the Gilliland era and, in coalition
with
UMKC students, staff, administration, alumni, parents, the local
community,
and the other UM campuses, also defeated the Blue Ribbon Task Force and
saved
the UM system. Early warnings to aggressors that they will face
stiff
opposition can convince them to rethink their policies.
Retirees Take Strong Stance Against Threat to Benefits
In response to the AAUP's appeal
to
faculty and staff to protest attacks on the University's retirement and
health
benefits, Dr. Ed Bailey, president of the UMKC Retirees Association,
sent
the following letter to System Vice President for Human Resources Ken
Hutchinson,
with copies to President Floyd, Chancellor Guy Bailey, and the Board of
Directors
of the UMKC Retirees Association. Ed's emphasis on the potential
damage
to the entire system is very pertinent. The letter was dated
March
31, 2006.
"Recent discussions by the Board
of
Curators have focused on matters of expenditures for employees'
benefits
and retirement plans. This is of considerable concern to current
and
retired employees of the University of Missouri. Consideration of
the
possibility of reducing the existing level of personnel benefits by the
University
or a revision downward of the present retirement program has serious
implications
for the future of the four-campus University of Missouri system.
A notable misconception
underlying
perspectives on financial support provided by the State of Missouri for
its
four-campus University system is that the State's fiscal support has
been
excessive. In fact, such is not the case as evidenced by
Missouri's
low ranking in the nation in per capita funding of public higher
education.
Related to this misconception is
the
idea that the primary cause of increased tuition fees charged to
students
is that the University's expenditures on faculty and staff benefits and
retirement
plans have been excessive. Again, the truth is that University of
Missouri
officials strive diligently to keep these costs below that of
comparable
public universities in other states.
Endeavors to contrast cost-saving
actions
in the private and business sectors with those of public universities
are
misleading because for-profit and not-for-profit organizations generate
markedly
different approaches to personnel matters. Competition for
high-quality
personnel in public higher education is typically more dependent on the
quality
of benefits and retirement options than on the salaries offered.
Opportunities
to conduct research in superior facilities with strong supportive
staffs
and excellent libraries as well as in tenured positions are often the
deciding
factors in hiring outstanding personnel. The reasons cited above
are
the major contributing conditions which make a university a desirable
place
to establish and sustain a career.
Constant turnover of personnel
has
a deleterious impact on the national and international status of a
university.
In the long run, the threatening effect of unpredictable benefits and
retirement
programs could prove to be more costly than the current system created
by
a secure and reasonable benefits and retirement program.
In effect, a movement to alter
the
present system of supportive benefits and reliable retirement plans is
likely
to diminish the status of the University of Missouri system. One
related
outcome might be the inability to compete for superior students or to
provide
attractive curricular choices for Missouri's students. Thus the
diminution
of top professionals and future leaders. This outcome conceivably
could
result from the dismantling of a well-established and effectively
managed
benefits and retirement system.
As retirees who devoted large
portions
of our professional careers to enhance the University of Missouri, it
is
with considerable apprehension that we envision the negative portent of
any
action which might place undue stress on the capacity of the University
of
Missouri to fulfill its constitutional role in Missouri's public higher
education
system.
As President of the UMKC Retirees
Association,
I urge the Board of Curators to retain the philosophy of the present
system
of benefits and retirement plans for the University of Missouri."
In the elections held in WS 2006
for
Senate offices, two hundred thirty-five faculty returned ballots.
Six
of the seven candidates recommended by the AAUP won their seats.
The
results were as follows: Chair Gary Ebersole; Vice Chair Steve Driever;
Secretary
Laura Gayle Green; IFC represenatative Nancy Stancel; Campus Budget
Advisory
Committee Tony Luppino and Karyl Leggio; Parking and Traffic Committee
Scott
Baker; IT Privacy Oversight Committee Carolyn Thompson; University
System
Committee on Tenure Marilyn Taylor and John Wang.
Our congratulations to those who
were
elected, and our thanks to all who agreed to run. Effective
faculty
governance depends on our willingness to serve.
As this issue was in preparation,
a
special election was under way to determine who would fill the empty
seat
on the IFC.
News of the Chapter: Benefits and Budgets
Discussion at the February 17
chapter
meeting, held at Saul Honigberg's house, focused on the Provost
candidates,
preparation of an AAUP-supported slate for the Senate elections, and
the
importance of member recruitment. Materials were distributed
about
Tom Guild and Cary Nelson, candidates for President in the National
AAUP
elections. At this meeting Ed Hood reported on the move among
certain
Curators to eliminate existing health and retirement benefits for
University
faculty and staff. Based on this heads-up, the chapter
immediately
alerted the membership to the threat and mounted a letter-writing
campaign
to express our opposition to this plan and our support of President
Floyd,
Dr. Hutchinson, and the rest of the administration and those Curators
who
likewise opposed it. Thanks to all who responded. We
reprint
a letter from the UMKC Retirees Association in this issue.
At the second in a series of
meetings
aimed at bringing faculty issues to the notice of the upper
administration,
the Chapter Executive Committee met March 21 with Chancellor
Bailey.
Among the items discussed were the attacks on benefits and pensions,
potential
changes in the University budgeting model, and the growing threat from
diploma
mills, particularly those offering degrees in education.
Chancellor
Bailey expressed the opinion that there was no immediate danger to the
benefits
and pension plans, but that this could change in January 2007, when
Governor
Blunt will be able to appoint three new members to the Board of
Curators.
Bailey asked Stu McAninch and Susan Adler to provide him with written
details
about the diploma mill problem. He expressed optimism concerning
the
budgeting model, sometimes known as RCM (Responsibility Centered
Model),
which is being considered by the University. Subsequently a
number
of chapter members attended a meeting of the Senate Budget Advisory
Committee,
which is currently involved in a study of RCM at a number of
universities.
They plan to present the results of their research to the
Chancellor.
A future issue of the
Faculty Advocate will include excerpts
from
their report and Chancellor Bailey's response.
Chapter members were active in
the
interviewing process for Provost, both serving on the search committee
and
asking hard questions at every faculty forum with the five
finalists.
It was announced April 14 that the Chancellor had offered the post to
internal
candidate Bruce Bubacz.
The first event of the fall
semester
will be a workshop on the tenure process, to which all tenure-track
faculty
are invited. A panel consisting of deans, a chair, members of the
Campus
Promotion and Tenure Committee, and recently tenured faculty will make
brief
presentations and field questions. The goal is to make the
process
more transparent and provide colleagues with crucial information as
they
move toward tenure.
The tenure workshop is scheduled for
Friday,
October 20, 2-4 PM in Education 307.
Since our last issue Stu McAninch
was
elected the UMKC chapter's representative to the State
Conference.
In that capacity he attended the annual State Conference meeting in
Columbia
in February, as well as the St. Louis Conference for Contingent Faculty
in
early April (see his report in this issue). Stu also represented
the
chapter at the annual meeting of the National AAUP in Washington, DC
this
summer. His travel to Washington was supported in part by the
chapter
and by the Missouri State AAUP conference.
Several members were on leave
during
the winter semester. Ed Gogol, SBS, has been pursuing his
research
in California, while Drew Bergerson, History, spent the semester in
Hildesheim,
Germany, working on the sequel to his 2004 study of Nazi Germany.
Both
Drew and John Laity, SBS, received UMRB research grants.
During the past year several
members--Saul
Honigberg, SBS, and Hali Fieldman, Conservatory of Music--received
tenure.
In addition, Saul became a father in late 2005; his daughter has
already
attended her first AAUP meeting. Kelly Pinkham became a
grandfather
again in February, and Linda Voigts a grandmother in April.
Congratulations
to all involved!
Our sympathies to Stu McAninch on
the
sudden death of his father early this semester.
Exercise your Rights to Governance
In the past year or two we have
won
some fierce battles for shared governance, one of the basic principles
of
the AAUP. But "eternal vigilance" isn't just a slogan. We
can't
afford to get lazy; instead we need to exercise the rights we've fought
for.
Faculty numbers are down, we are all overcommitted and overworked--but
if
we don't do it, who will?
The following opportunities
shouldn't
be ignored. In an August 23 memo Senate Chair Gary Ebersole urged
faculty
to volunteer for standing committees of the Senate or to run for
election
to other campus posts. It's here that faculty governance happens
at
a practical level.
To Gary's suggestions I would add
two
other things you could do to protect AAUP principles at UMKC:
1. Mentor younger faculty and new
hires.
We are the institutional memory, we can and must help newcomers
understand
the campus culture and the important role of faculty governance within
it.
2. Recruit new members for the
chapter.
Take a few minutes to talk to your colleagues about AAUP. Remind
them
what we've achieved together over the past couple of years.
State Funding, Tenure, Contingent Faculty Examined at Two Missouri
Meetings
by Stuart McAninch
Presentations and discussions at
the
annual Missouri Conference meeting in Columbia on February 4 centered
on
issues pertaining to academic freedom and tenure and to financing of
public
higher education. Earl Henry from Webster University in St. Louis
also
reported on progress in planning for the St. Louis Conference for
Contingent
Faculty.
Missouri Conference President
John
Harms opened the meeting with a presentation on the decline of public
higher
education. Drawing particularly on the work of John Kenneth
Galbraith,
he placed that decline within the broader historical context of the
decline
of the public sector and of public values during the last half
century.
He also introduced for consideration a number of issues and questions
regarding
what happens as institutions and programs which provide important
social
services and protections and at least a degree of social equity are
steadily
cut back by state governments and the federal government. John
emphasized
that with decreasing state appropriations for higher education and
rising
tuition during recent years, it has become increasingly more difficult
for
state universities to be accessible to non-affluent students.
John's talk served as context for
a
presentation later in the day by Tom Kruckemeyer, Chief Economist for
the
Missouri Budget Project (
http://www.mobudget.org).
Tom provided data on recent trends in state revenue and appropriations
and a warning concerning support in the state legislature for a measure
comparable
to the Colorado "Taxpayers Bill of Rights" (TABOR). [TABOR is a
constitutional
amendment limiting the growth of state spending; see
Faculty
Advocate No. 19, November 2005, for a brief analysis of its baneful
consequences.--Ed].
Among the highlights in his report on revenue and appropriations was
the
fact that while state revenue increased during Fiscal Years 2004 and
2005
after two years of decline, revenue as a percentage of Missouri income
was
lower in FY 2005 than it had been in any fiscal year between 1987 and
2002.
While projections for FY 2006 and 2007 show an increase in revenue,
they
also show a continued slide in revenue as a percentage of income.
This
trend has meant declining appropriations for higher education, an
underfunding
of schooling (with a lawsuit filed by 237 school districts in response
to
this), the elimination of Medicaid coverage this year for approximately
90,000
people (with working women constituting the majority of this group),
and
the lowest paid state employees in the nation.
Tom maintained that financial
problems
experienced by the state would be substantially worsened if those
attempting
to institute a measure comparable to Colorado's TABOR were
successful.
The Missouri Budget Project has been watching particularly closely
House
Joint Resolution 48, which, according to the Project's Web site, "would
create
a new Constitutional lid on state spending growth." In
particular,
it would begin "with a 'ratchet' effect as Missouri's future spending
would
be tied to today's historic budget crisis levels."
Tom noted that "[i]f the HJR
limit
were in effect for FY 2007, a reduction of $200 to $250 million in
state
revenue would be required." He also noted the irony of Missouri
legislators
working to pass HJR 48 at a time when Colorado voters had rejected
TABOR
and "voted to give up about $500 million in annual tax refunds."
Keith Hardeman, Missouri
Conference
Vice President, gave a presentation entitled "The War on Academic
Freedom
and Tenure: Will They Survive?" His talk focused primarily on
tenure
as a necessary defense of academic freedom. He exhorted us to be
knowledgeable
about tenure and to counter common myths which undermine public and
legislative
support of tenure. In particular, he stressed the common
misconceptions
that "[t]enure insures lifetime employment" and that "[m]ost college
faculty
have or are in line to receive tenure." Keith also provided data
which
refute the myths that '[t]enure causes professors to become complacent
and
less productive" and that "[r]educing or eliminating tenure saves money
(and
lowers tuition) without reducing instructional quality." His
presentation
made clear that lacking the protection of tenure, contingent faculty
also
lack any guarantee of academic freedom and the means to sustain faculty
governance.
It also stressed that tenure-line faculty play an essential role in
providing
research, service to students and institutions, quality instruction,
and
educational continuity--and that these contributions cannot be
replicated
by replacing tenure-line faculty with contingent faculty.
The St. Louis Conference for
Contingent
Faculty was held on Saturday, April 8 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in
Clayton.
Speakers included contingent faculty members from the St. Louis area as
well
as Joe Berry, Chair of the Chicago Coalition of Contingent Academic
Labor
and author of
Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to
Reclaim
Higher Education (2005), and Edward Macias, Executive Vice
Chancellor
and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Washington
University.
A variety of workshops were also offered. Sponsors and
contributors
included the AAUP Assembly of State Conferences, the AAUP Missouri
Conference,
the Washington University Chapter of the AAUP, the Missouri Federation
of
Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers, the National
Education
Association, the Saint Louis University Faculty Compensation Committee,
and
the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates. The website for the
conference
is
http://www.stladjuncts.org
.
Culture War Issues, Organizational Problems Take Center Stage at
National
AAUP Meeting
by Stuart McAninch
The national AAUP held its 92nd
annual
meeting June 9-11 in Washington, DC. What was most striking to me
at
the various Assembly of State Conferences (ASC), plenary, breakfast,
and
comittee breakout sessions I attended was discussion of what
President-elect
Cary Nelson referred to as "culture war issues": in particular,
the
ideological and political struggle between David Horowitz and the
American
Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) on the one hand, and the AAUP and
allied
academic and civic organizations on the other (see
Faculty Advocate
No. 19, November 2005, for several articles on Horowitz and his
"Academic
Bill of Rights"). Other issues pertaining to the organization and
financial
state of the AAUP were also frequently addressed in sessions.
"Culture war issues" as a central
theme
was illustrated by the choice of speakers. Michael
Bérubé,
the Paterno Family Professor of Literature at the Pennsylvania State
University,
spoke on what he described as the current attack by the radical right
on
"procedural liberalism". "Procedural liberalism", as he defined
it,
is characterized by classical liberal commitments such as those to
rational
inquiry, a marketplace of ideas, and balanced and limited
government.
This brand of liberalism, he pointed out, is necessary for an open
society
and academic freedom. Differentiating between conservatism and
the
radical right, Bérubé argued that the agenda of the
radical
right is the negation of "procedural liberalism" in universities and in
government.
The address by Anthony Romero,
Executive
Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, at Saturday's
Recognition
Banquet illustrated the alliance between the AAUP and ACLU on issues of
academic
freedom. Both organizations serve as coalition members of Free
Exchange
on Campus, which has formed to oppose adoption by states of the
"Academic
Bill of Rights" and distorted characterizations by Horowitz and others
of
faculty members as dangerous radicals intent on
indoctrination.
Romero replaced Muslim scholar
Tariq
Ramadan on the schedule since for the second year in a row Ramadan was
unable
to attend the annual meeting after having his work visa rescinded by
the
United States government. In an immediate sense, the invitation
to
Ramadan (who did address the 2005 meeting via audio and video link)
illustrated
the AAUP's opposition to the government's denial of visas to academics
on
political grounds. In a letter to the Secretary of State and
Secretary
of Homeland Security in February, Roger Bowen, AAUP General Secretary,
had
expressed "deep concern" about the revocation of the visa of Waskar
Ari,
a Bolivian scholar appointed to a faculty position at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln,
and the prevention of 65 Cuban scholars from participating in an
international
academic conference in Las Vegas. The denial in 2004 of the visa
needed
for Ramadan to assume his faculty position at Notre Dame University was
also
cited. Bowen concluded that there is "a troubling pattern
emerging
in which foreign scholars offered appointments at American universities
or
invited to attend academic conferences are prevented from entering the
United
States because of their perceived political beliefs or
associations."
This pattern, in turn, points "to a disturbing disregard on the part of
the
Bush administration for our society's commitment to academic freedom."
As the last quotation suggests,
"deep
concern" about U.S. government actions extended beyond denial or
revocations
of visas for foreign scholars. AAUP members, for instance,
expressed
opposition to reclassification of previously declassified government
documents.
They likewise opposed the implementation by government departments and
agencies
during recent years of policies for review of documents which impede
declassification
and thereby severely restrict scholars' access to the information
necessary
for accurate analysis of the history or current state of American
foreign
policy and intelligence activities. A resolution presented by the
Resolutions
Committee affirmed that "in these critical times the need is for more,
not
less, freedom of inquiry and expression."
The centrality of "culture war
issues"
to the current work of the Association was further illustrated by the
multiple
screenings on Friday of the documentary "Howard Zinn: You Can't Be
Neutral
on a Moving Train." The film traced Zinn's political and academic
coming
of age, his work in the civil rights and anti-war movements, and his
critique
of traditional top-down historical narratives and the subsequent focus
on
the contributions of grass-roots movements in his writing and
teaching.
His work as a mentor to young black civil rights activists while
serving
on the faculty at Spelman College, his vision of a just and democratic
society
which can only be realized through informed grass-roots activism, and
his
own integration as an academic of political activism, teaching, and
writing
over the course of half a century were particularly noteworthy.
As
the film title indicates, Zinn's approach to scholarship has been
characterized
by a fusion of analysis and action informed by a distinctly political
set
of values and commitments.
Given the organization's concern
about
serious threats to academic freedom, at a meeting of state conference
representatives
Cary Nelson explained the significance of the Campaign for the Common
Good,
whose goal is creation of a $10 million endowment for the AAUP.
While
Roger Bowen in a later meeting would matter-of-factly describe the
endowment
campaign as an effort to make the organization better able to manage
its
finances in the face of annual fluctuations in dues revenue and grant
money,
Nelson stressed that a successful campaign was necessary to strengthen
"ASC
structures" in defense of academic freedom, should American public
tolerance
for academic dissent weaken in the event of further terrorist
attacks.
Nelson also made it clear at the meeting that he would vigorously
exhort
AAUP members to each donate $1000 to the endowment fund (typically by
credit
card over the course of a number of months).
If issues regarding academic
freedom
were frequent topics of discussion, so were issues regarding the
organizational
and financial state of the AAUP. In his remarks at the ASC
session,
Nelson cited record-keeping for membership as an area of failure in the
national
office. He stressed the need for conferences and chapters not to
let
the national office go to sleep on this issue. Questions and
comments
directed to Bowen at the breakfast on Saturday with the General
Secretary
highlighted problems experienced by the national office in processing
new
memberships and renewals and in sharing information with
chapters.
A questioner observed that "[w]e send names in, and they just go into a
void."
Another observation that bills were not going out properly was
made.
Yet another complaint was that inefficiency in sending information to
chapters
and errors in that information are making it impossible to maintain
accurate
chapter records. The gist of the question-and-answer session was
succinctly
captured by one questioner: "What in the heck is going on?"
In his description of what in the
heck
is going on, Bowen promised a "tighter organization." He made
reference
to the particularly complex financial structure of the organization
with
different dues rates for different membership classes and the different
state
conferences. He cited extensive turnover of staff, low salaries,
and
the necessity of staff members to perform a range of functions without
adequate
support. He acknowledged a need for improvement in recordkeeping
and
accounting. In his remarks in the plenary session which
immediately
followed the Saturday breakfast, he spoke further of improvements
underway.
A new data-base system is currently being instituted; this will enable
an
integrated data base for finance and membership records. The
organization
of the national office has been streamlined, with seven departments
consolidated
into five. The message from membership has been heard, he
contended;
further improvements will be made. Increase in membership will
alleviate
the strain on the staff. He challenged each AAUP member to ask
another
colleague in the same department to join in order to increase dues
revenue
and finance improvements.
The oral report of Jeffrey Butts,
the
Secretary-Treasurer, was not accompanied by a written report: "I cannot
present
to you figures that I do not have confidence in." He indicated
that
an external audit was underway and that a summary of the auditor's
report
would be placed on the Web site. He cited (without explaining)
that
there is a "problem of staff inadequate to the task." In response
to
a question concerning whether there is adequate cash flow at this time,
he
replied affirmatively. When asked when the "personnel situation"
and
problems with membership records and dues notices and collections would
be
resolved, he replied that this would happen as soon as possible.
He
ended his remarks with the statement that "[r]egrettably, that is my
report."
On a more positive note, the
Missouri
Conference was reauthorized during the plenary session on Saturday
afternoon
for the "comprehensive dues system" for three more years--which means,
as
I understand the matter, that the national office will continue to bill
and
collect annual dues for the Missouri Conference.
There was some attention in
various
sessions to contingent faculty and graduate student issues.
Michael
Livingston, Chair of the Committee on Graduate and Professional
Students,
requested that AAUP members recruit graduate students as a means to
counteract
the lack of familiarity with the AAUP and consequent difficulty in
recruiting
new faculty members. Reference was made to the transformation of
the
academic labor force in recent decades--one characteristic of that
transformation
being an increase in the percentage of courses taught by graduate
students.
Reference was also made to the extension by the AAUP of voting
membership
to graduate students.
Outgoing President Jane Buck
spoke
in a plenary session of her own and Cary Nelson's arrests at a
demonstration
earlier this year in support of the New York University graduate
students'
union. A National Labor Relations Board ruling in 2004 that
graduate
student employees are primarily students (as opposed to workers)
reversed
a NLRB ruling in 2001 which granted legal recognition to the
union.
This reversal enabled the administration and governing board to
withdraw
union recognition. Graduate employees subsequently initiated a
strike
in November. Buck noted that exploitation of graduate employees
undermines
the profession and faculty governance. An article in the June 9
issue
of
The Chronicle of Higher Education ("A Tenured Radical Takes
Office")
suggested that the NYU action represents a high priority for Cary
Nelson
as incoming president: "In a couple of ways, the NYU rally exemplifies
Mr.
Nelson's vision for the AAUP. First, he hopes the group will
start
paying more attention to graduate students. Under his watch, he
hopes,
it will craft `a more elaborate statement on graduate-student rights,
procedures,
and responsibilities.'"
In his remarks at the plenary
session,
Nelson cited the need to reach out to contingent faculty. He
linked
this need with his exhortation to members to contribute $1000 each for
the
endowment campaign. Only when the endowment is established will
it
be feasible to cut dues, a step which will facilitate recruitment of
poorly
compensated contingent faculty. In the same session, David
Hollinger,
Chair of Committee A, reported continuing work with the Committee on
Contingent
Faculty and the Profession on a document laying out policy
recommendations
and principles for extension of protection for contingent faculty in
the
areas of dismissal or nonreappointment. According to the
Committee's
report, "[t]he proposed recommendations will be published for comment
in
a future issue of
Academe."
Apropos of graduate students' and
contingent
faculty's issues, some attendees raised questions regarding the expense
of
the AAUP Annual Meeting. Nelson was asked why, considering "the
practical
and symbolic consequences", the meeting is held in such an expensive
city
and hotel--especially given the emphasis on recruiting graduate
students,
who often make "little more than bus boys." A similar question
arose
at one of the ASC sessions. A member of the Virginia Conference
noted
that it might be less expensive to move the Annual Meeting to northern
Virginia.
A partial answer provided by the Association leadership was that the
Omni
Shoreham Hotel is unionized--a response which led a number of us to
wonder
if there were in the area less expensive unionized hotels which could
accommodate
the meetings. One might also raise a question concerning the
expense
of meals, with dinners on Thursday and Saturday costing $65 each and
luncheons
on Friday and Saturday costing $40 each. Since speeches are
delivered
and business and networking are conducted at meals, it is exceedingly
difficult
(as I discovered) to fully participate in the Annual Meeting while
foregoing
the meals.
Flo Hatcher, Chair of the ASC,
announced
leadership training workshops scheduled for October 6-7 in Washingon,
DC,
which would constitute "a pilot program" for developing a generation of
leaders
in the Collective Bargaining Congress and ASC (although the emphasis
seems
to be initially on providing intensive training for state conference
and
advocacy chapter leaders). According to Hatcher's report, "[t]his
innovative
training experience will offer an expanded version of AAUP 101 from the
summer
institute; a course on designing and implementing a membership drive
with
a special focus on issue-base organizing, as that seems the most
fruitful
in the advocacy context. Additional offerings include the basics
of
chapter and conference management, and a workshop on a current issue of
importance
that for fall 2006 may be on how to fight ABOR [Academic Bill of
Rights]
legislation at the state level." Attendance will be limited to 25
participants.
Money to subsidize travel and participation is available through the
ASC.
Food for Thought: Another Look at UMKC's Shameful Record on Race and
Gender
by Pat Brodsky
According to a recent article in
the
Pitch (Bryan Noonan, "The
Invisible Men," June 20-26, 2006), UMKC as of that
date had only nine people of color in tenured positions.
Following
on the heels of a damning report released by an outside auditor in
April
that found UMKC to be permeated with institutional racism, Noonan's
piece,
which included interviews with several minority faculty who have left
UMKC
for successful careers elsewhere, cast light on a crucial
problem.
To those of us who have been on
campus
for a long time, all this comes as no surprise. Since I joined
UMKC
in 1974, I have seen numerous enthusiastic, well-trained
African-American
faculty (and staff) grow wary, then angry, and finally leave the
university
and the city for more supportive surroundings. I learned very
quickly
(as did they) that Kansas City is still a southern town (the history of
public
school integration here should make that clear), and that its "Premier
University"
wasn't doing much to counteract the situation. It seems that not
much
has changed in all those years.
One of the most damaging aspects
of
institutional racism is the clear negative message it sends to minority
students.
Not only do they lack sufficient minority academic mentors but many
perceive
that there is no future for them in the academy, particular in the
sciences.
In addition, Don Matthews, head of Black Studies, has left UMKC,
raising
questions about the future of that program.
Figures distributed at the
beginning
of fall semester indicate that gender balance has made little or no
progress
in the College of Arts and Sciences. (I don't have the numbers
for
other units on campus; if readers could provide them, I will be happy
to
publish them in a future issue.) The seventeen A&S
departments
have a total of 172 tenured or tenure-track faculty, of whom sixty-one,
or
35%, are women. Of these, one has left her department to become
Dean
of the College, another has left the university, and at least three
more
(two of them African-American) will be leaving at the end of this
academic
year. Some departments are much more balanced than others.
English,
Art and Art History, History, and Sociology have close to a 50/50
distribution,
while Foreign Languages, Psychology and Social Work have a majority of
female
faculty. Political Science and Architecure have only one woman
each,
and Philosophy has none. All other departments have far fewer
than
50% women, and in the natural sciences, there are only six women out of
42
faculty, or 14% of the total. These numbers are not only
depressing,
but astounding, given the decades-long national emphasis on the
importance
of gender balance. Nor is it the case that "there aren't any
qualified
women." The same situation prevails for women students as for
minority
students: insufficient mentors, particularly in the sciences, and a
discouraging
message about career chances.
The welcome announcement early in
the
semester of a reception to meet and celebrate our minority students
shows
that the problem is being addressed on one level, at least. And
in
a recent report to the Arts and Sciences faculty, Dr. Kimberly
Baker-Flowers,
Program Director for Multicultural Student Success in the office of
Academic
Affairs, outlined a whole series of projects aimed both at improving
relations
with the minority community and addressing women's issues. These
range
from Ivanhoe House, where UMKC students will live and serve as mentors
to
neighborhood children, to increased efforts at recruitment and
retention
of minority students, to a proposal for a women's mentoring structure
for
faculty and staff. Particularly promising are two conferences,
the
African-American/Latino Male Empowerment Summit, planned for 2007 and
aimed
at addressing issues of male minority students, and Black Women
Leaders,
a meeting hosted by UMKC to highlight black women. These projects
are
commendable and surely represent a move in the right direction.
But the scandalously low
proportion
of female and especially minority faculty, and the conditions that
drive
so many of them away from UMKC, must not be allowed to continue.
A
very encouraging sign is the fact that many of the exciting new hires
in
the College are minorities and/or women. This trend must continue
if
UMKC is to maintain (gain?) credibility and attract the best young
applicants
of all genders and races.
Part of the responsibility for
ensuring
a supportive campus lies with the administration. A second
element
in determining a faculty member's experience at UMKC is the State,
since
funding looms large in defining our academic life. But the
faculty
also have a major role to play in improving the situation. We
conduct
the job searches, interview the candidates, and make the hiring
decisions
that are sent on to the Deans. We also work on a daily basis with
the
people who are ultimately hired, and the faculty to a great extent are
responsible
for the atmosphere they encounter on campus. We have a
responsibility
to mentor all new colleagues. And we need to take special care to
make
welcome those who are in a minority on campus.
Friday, October 20, 2-4 PM
Education 307
Sponsored by AAUP chapter at UMKC
Panel includes deans, a chair,
members of the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee, and recently
tenured
faculty
The panel will make brief presentations and field questions
All tenure-track faculty are invited
The AAUP chapter at UMKC Serves YOU
Since the chapter was revived
in
1999, our track record speaks for itself. We have provided
crucial
information to the faculty and fought for faculty rights and the
integrity
of the University. In addition to our day-to-day involvement in
campus
life, such as advising on academic freedom and faculty governance
issues
and aiding faculty with grievances, we have also undertaken numerous
initiatives
to publicize AAUP principles.
HIGHLIGHTS
1.
March 3, 2001: The
chapter
organized and sponsored a one-day
conference, "Education for
Democracy:
Fighting the Corporate Takeover." Two dozen speakers
from
Missouri and Kansas gave presentations, including faculty, students,
legislators,
unionists, and community activists. The conference generated the
Education for Democracy Network, an ongoing listserv concerned with
related
issues. A dozen presentations from the conference, plus three
articles
from other geographical regions, were published in
Workplace: A
Journal
of Academic Labor 4.2 (February 2002) (
http://www.louisville.edu/journal/workplace/wp42.html)
2.
September 21, 2001-May 3,
2002
: Responding to xenophobic attacks on Muslims and Arabs following
9/11,
the chapter co-sponsored with student organizations a well-attended
series
of
seven public forums under the title, "Teaching Tolerance."
Topics included Islam, Afghan culture, war propaganda and stereotyping,
US
foreign policy, war reporting, and Civil Liberties after 9/11. In
fall
2002 students continued the teach-ins on their own initiative.
3.
October 25, 2002: The
chapter
organized and sponsored a
symposium, "Putting the Faculty Back into
Shared
Governance," with the keynote speaker from the national AAUP.
Many
in attendance learned for the first time that the faculty has concrete
responsibilities
for university governance.
4.
February 26-28, 2004:
Working with the Missouri Philological Association, the chapter
co-organized
and co-sponsored a
three day conference with the theme of "Academic
Labor."
The conference was the first cooperative venture between the
AAUP
and an academic disciplinary organization in AAUP history.
Keynote
speakers included poet Martin Espada and Professor Cary Nelson, now
president of the national AAUP.
5.
2000-2004: Through
years
of unrelenting reporting and critique (see
Faculty Advocate
, issues No. 2-17), particularly of administrative assaults on faculty
governance
and on the School of Biological Sciences, School of Education, Law
School,
and College of Arts and Sciences, the chapter laid the groundwork for
multiple
votes of no confidence in the administration of Chancellor
Martha
Gilliland, and for the
Chancellor's resignation in December
2004.
6.
Spring-Fall 2005: The
chapter
organized
public opposition to the "Blue Ribbon Task Force," a
panel
of right-wing "experts" funded by local business interests whose agenda
included
dismantling the UM system and privatizing UMKC. Chapter members'
testimony
before the Task Force and at two state government hearings, op eds in
local
and statewide newspapers, radio and TV interviews, and an appeal to the
Kansas
City community succeeded in derailing this combined local corporate and
state
government campaign against public higher education.
7.
April and October 2005:
The
chapter co-sponsored "
Tent State University" and AAUP members
led
teach-ins. Tent State is a national student-organized week-long
series
of events defending public higher education.
8.
October 20, 2006: The
chapter sponsored a
workshop on the tenure
process for tenure-track faculty.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
9. The chapter fought for vastly
improved
compensation and working conditions for
part-time contingent faculty
. It co-sponsored and participated in two campus rallies
organized
by part-timers to publicize their plight, and it helped contingent
faculty
and graduate students form campus organizations.
10. The chapter sent members,
including
a part-timer, to
two national AAUP conventions in Washington DC
and
to
two AAUP summer institutes.
11. The chapter worked toward
establishing
a significant
AAUP presence on the Faculty Senate, to ensure
that
AAUP principles remain central to the discussion.
12. The chapter spoke out
in
defense
of faculty whose
academic freedom and tenure were under
attack,
including Harris Mirkin at UMKC, Sami al-Arian at University of South
Florida,
and Ward Churchill at University of Colorado.
13. The chapter sent out
e-mail
alerts on emerging education issues on campus, statewide, and
nationally.
14. The chapter published twenty
numbers
of
The Faculty Advocate, UMKC's AAUP newsletter and the
voice
of the faculty. Besides UMKC problems, the newsletter has
reported
on state, national, and international education issues and has featured
a
broad range of invited articles from off-campus contributors. All
issues
can be found online at
http://cas.umkc.edu/aaup/facadv1.htm
[/facadv2.htm, etc. up to /facadv20.htm]
15. The chapter holds
parties
for
faculty, friendly get-togethers, and membership meetings.
Above
all
we are a pro-active faculty organization that reports
threats
to academic freedom, encourages faculty activism, and works to involve
faculty
in reasserting their governance responsibilities.
JOIN US!
Local dues are $10/year, payable to UMKC-AAUP
Send your check to: Pat Brodsky
Foreign Languages and Literatures, 218 Scofield Hall
For
national dues rates,
go to this link
The entire contents of each issue of
The Faculty Advocate
(except for
public domain material) is copyrighted.
The Faculty Advocate
, October 2006, Copyright 2006 by the UMKC Chapter of the American
Association of University Professors. All rights returned to
authors upon publication. AAUP chapters, state conferences, and
the national organization have permission to reproduce and
distribute. Permission for other non-profit publishers is a
formality, but UMKC AAUP asks them for the courtesy of requesting
it. Contact the Editor, Patricia Brodsky: 816-235-2826, e-mail:
brodskyp@umkc.edu
AAUP Dues Information
Membership
Open to all faculty
Full-time tenured and tenure-track
Full-time non-tenure track
Part-time
Graduate teaching assistants
Membership requires payment of both local and national dues
Local UMKC chapter dues
$10 per academic year.
Send payment to Pat Brodsky, Scofield 218, 816-235-2826, or
brodskyp@umkc.edu
Please make checks payable to "UMKC-AAUP Chapter."
National dues
50% off
a) Entrant:
Nontenured full-time faculty, new to the AAUP, for first four years
of membership
b) Joint: Full-time faculty
member whose spouse or partner is a full-time member
c) Retired
75% off
Part Time: Faculty
paid on a per course or percentage basis
$10/yr
Graduate: Person
enrolled as graduate student at an accredited institution; five-year
limit
Please note that national dues also cover Missouri State Conference
dues (but not local UMKC dues)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2000)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 1, No. 2 (December 2000)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 1, No. 3 (February 2001)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 1, No. 4 (April 2001)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 2, No. 1 (October 2001)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 2001)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 2, No. 3 (February 2002)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 2, No. 4 (April 2002)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 2, No. 5 (June 2002)
The Faculty
Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 1 (September 2002)
The Faculty
Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 2 (December 2002)
The Faculty
Advocate, Vol. 3, Nos. 3-4 (April 2003)
The Faculty
Advocate, Vol. 4, Nos. 1-2 (December 2003)
The Faculty
Advocate, Vol. 4, Nos. 3-4 (April 2004)
The Faculty
Advocate, Vol. 5, No.1 (August 2004)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 5, No. 2 (October 2004)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 5, No. 3 (February 2005)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 5, No. 4 (May 2005)
The Faculty Advocate,
Vol. 6, Nos. 1-2 (November 2005)
AAUP Chapter Home Page