Comment

Marny and others noted that, in the coming months, we had to define ourselves as a Department. The question of Lectureships raises that very question. We are already a two-tier Department, composed of adjuncts, on the one hand, and full-time (tenured or tenure-track) members, on the other. If the Lectureships truly "institutionalize" an unequal policy, at least they do so under improved working conditions. Adjuncts currently travel to two or more places and teach a total of 3 to 7 courses without any assurances of continuing employment. If all John Jay's adjuncts were PhD's seeking full-time employment on tenure-track research lines, perhaps the Lectureships would be a cruel alternative to their true goals. But our adjuncts seem to be a mixture of ABD's, MFAs, and others (who may include PhDs). Some of these are working as adjuncts on an interim basis before moving on. I think that the Lectureships are targeted at MFAs and other talented writers who have no intention of ever getting a PhD, but who have contributed significantly to the richness and variety of the Department's writing programs (gen ed courses, as well as Pre-Law Bootcamp, WAC and others). Mark, is this true? These adjuncts are not eligible to apply for the research lines. For these adjuncts, a "two-tiered" system WITH Lectureships might be preferable to one without Lectureships. I agree totally with Pat about the value of writing and her concern with devaluing writing in the Department. If the current proposal were to convert all writing lines to Lectureships, perhaps that would raise a huge concern. But perhaps a maximum of 8-10 Lectureships (phased in on a trial basis) might not harm the writing program as a whole, but enhance it with adjuncts who are engaged in successful creative writing and/or film careers, or who have had extensive experience in journalism, business, or law.