Last year, I wrote a blog post about what sessionals get paid, and how essentially it works out to about what assistant profs get paid for the teaching component of their jobs and that in this sense at least one could argue that sessionals in fact are getting equal pay for work of equal value.
I got a fair bit of hate mail for that one, mostly because people have trouble distinguishing between is-ought arguments. People seemed to think that because I was pointing out that pay rates for teaching are pretty close for junior profs and sessionals, that everything is therefore hunky-dory. Not at all. The heart of the case is that sessionals don’t want to be paid just to teach, they’d like to be paid to do research and all that other scholarly stuff as well.
(Well, some of them would, anyway. Others have day jobs and are perfectly happy teaching one course a year on the side because it’s fun. We have no idea how many fall into each category. Remarkably, Statistics Canada is planning on spending a million dollars to count sessionals in Canadian universities but in such a way as to shed absolutely no light on this rather important question. But I digress: for the moment, let us assume that when we are talking about sessionals, we are talking about those who aspire to full-time academia)
A lot of advocates on behalf of sessionals seem obsessed with arguing their case on “fairness” grounds. “It’s not fair” that they only get paid to teach while others get paid to teach and research and do whatever the hell service consists of. To which there is a fairly curt answer, even if most people are too polite to make it: “if you didn’t get hired as a full-time prof, it’s probably because the relevant hiring committee didn’t think you were up to our standards on the whole research thing.” So this isn’t really a winning argument.
Where universities are much more vulnerable is on the issue of mission. The whole point of universities – the one thing that gives them their cachet – is that they are supposed to be delivering education in a research-intensive atmosphere. This is the line of defence that is continually used whenever the issue of offering more degrees in community colleges or polytechnics arises. “Research-intensive! Degrees Gotta Be Research-intensive! Did we mention the Research Intensity thing?”
But given that, why is it that in most of the country’s major universities, over 50% of undergraduate student course-hours are taught by sessionals who are specifically employed so as to not be research-active?
Ok, where the purpose of education is more practice than theory (eg law, nursing, journalism), you probably want a lot of sessionals who are working professionals. In those programs, sessionals complement the mission. But in Arts? Science? Business? In those fields, the mere existence of sessionals undermines the case for universities’ exclusivity in undergraduate degree-granting. And however financially-advantageous sessionals may be to the university (not an unimportant consideration in an era where public support for universities is eroding), long-term this is a far more dangerous problem.
So the real issue re: universities and sessionals is not one of fairness but of hypocrisy. If sessionals really wanted to put political pressure on institutions, they would make common cause with colleges and polytechnics. They would ceaselessly demand documents from institutions through Freedom of Information from institutions to determine what percentage of student credit hours are taught by sessionals. They would use that information to loudly back colleges’ claims for more undergraduate degree-granting powers, because really, what’s the difference? And eventually, governments would relent because the case for the status quo is really weak.
My guess is that those activists arguing on behalf of sessionals won’t choose this course because their goal is less to smash the system of privileged insiders than it is to join it. But they’d have a case. And universities would do well to remember it.