LOS ANGELES—As of May 14, LMU tenure-line faculty have just vetoed a university-wide proposal that was set to reshape the university’s staffing. The proposal comes amidst months of debate and would have reduced the number of part-time faculty while increasing the number of full-time faculty.
The proposal, which was sent to tenure-line faculty, was vetoed with 65 voting for and 83 voting against, according to a Faculty Senate Update.
The proposal was introduced by Provost Kat Weaver and her office, and David Kovacs, LMU philosophy instructor and full-time non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty member, said it was “intended to create a more stable and prestigious title for full-time NTT faculty, offering higher salaries, flexible teaching loads, and periodic course remissions.”
For instructors like Bryan Wisch, who have already begun looking for new jobs amid the uncertainty, the prominent question has been whether the faculty already doing the work would be protected during this transition.
On Friday, May 1, a ballot was sent just to tenure-track faculty and term instructors to vote on the “Professor of Teaching” proposal, as reported by David Kovacs, LMU philosophy instructor and full-time non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty member. A separate poll was also sent to current instructors and senior instructors, according to a Faculty Senate motion. Kovacs and several other faculty expected the proposal to pass and described it as “a positive step forward” for full-time NTT faculty, adding to the surprising nature of today’s results.
The agreement made sure that for the proposal to pass, it needed to get majority support by instructors and senior instructors through a poll.
NTT faculty are members who teach at the university but are not on the tenure track; they may be full-time term instructors or part-time adjunct faculty. The official voting process, which excludes NTT faculty, raised questions about which faculty have formal authority over proposals that could especially affect NTT and part-time instructors.
Those most directly affected by the title change are being polled, but the formal Faculty Handbook vote is being sent to just tenure-line faculty. The Faculty Senate motion says this structure followed President Poon’s interpretation that titling is a personnel decision and that allowing non-tenure-line faculty to formally vote on such a decision would “violate the Faculty Handbook.”
If passed, the proposal would have created a new “Professor of Teaching” track for full-time non-tenure-track faculty, replacing the current “Instructor” title with a title Wisch said better aligns with national higher education standards.
“We use titles incorrectly,” Wisch said. He explained that the current title can misrepresent full-time LMU faculty when they apply elsewhere, because “instructor” often refers to someone without a terminal degree or someone teaching part-time. “On top of being a more prestigious title than instructor, it is basically industry standard,” he said.
Faculty would have been able to choose among 3-3, 3-4, or 4-4 course loads, with higher loads resulting in higher salaries. Wisch, however, said the higher salary option should not be confused with a simple raise, as it’s not a true solution to low faculty pay.
“Adding the possibility for the course overload was this administration’s way to say ‘see you’re not earning poverty wages because if you teach 4 classes every semester, we pay you for that 4th class,’” Wisch said. “It’s basically more money for more work.”
Still, even some faculty critical of the process say the proposal responds to real problems in LMU’s current faculty model.
Supporters argued that LMU’s current model has long relied too heavily on unstable part-time labor and short-term non-tenure-track contracts. This model could provide faculty with greater stability while aiming to improve student learning, especially in departments that teach much of the core curriculum, such as Theology and Philosophy.
Anna Harrison, professor and chair of Theological Studies, has been at LMU for over twenty years. She has seen union movements and staffing proposals come and go during her time at the school, and has condemned the lack of support under previous BCLA leadership.
“The way our university has dealt with part-time faculty and non-tenure-track in general has been reprehensible,” said Harrison. She finds that this proposal would have addressed long-standing problems in LMU’s treatment of part-time and NTT faculty.
Harrison said BCLA Dean Richard Fox has taken concerns about NTT faculty more seriously than previous college leadership, particularly by pushing departments to better integrate teaching faculty into hiring, review, and pedagogical conversations.
Kovacs describes this change as a response to “adjunctification,” or universities growing dependent on part-time faculty.
“It’s not good for a university, long term, to rely on that much part-time labor,” Kovacs said.
Wisch agreed that LMU’s reliance on part-time labor is a major issue, but considers the move to be more of a cost-saving measure. He said part-time faculty are less likely to receive the same benefits as full-time employees.
For Wisch, the main issue is not the Professor of Teaching title itself, but the lack of a clear transition process.
“There’s nothing in the proposal that talks about how this transition would take place,” Wisch said.
He worries that current instructors could be forced to apply for Professor of Teaching positions and compete with part-time LMU faculty as well as national candidates.
“If this were to pass as is, and this new title is created, all of us who are currently full-time instructors would have to apply for these Professor of Teaching positions,” said Wisch. “That’s the concern.”
Wisch said that faculty who were concerned about the unclear transition process had proposed ideas during union negotiations. They suggested changing current full-time instructors’ titles to Professor of Teaching, so they would not have to reapply, while also allowing part-time lecturers to teach up to full-time loads when additional classes were available.
Harrison, however, says that in Theology, some full-time, already reviewed faculty were able to “slide over” into the new positions, while part-time faculty and some deadline-limited full-time NTT faculty had to reapply.
Kovacs explained that implementation could vary by department. Some may use internal searches for hiring, while others may conduct a national search and require reapplications.
Wish said that kind of department-level discretion is especially complicated for faculty whose positions do not fit neatly into one department. He teaches in Rhetorical Arts, which is housed in English, but said his hiring and evaluation processes are split between different offices.
“The director of the core gets to make hiring decisions for my position, but the department chair of English gets to evaluate me. It makes no sense,” he said.
The same shift that could create more stable full-time positions could also reduce opportunities for part-time faculty.
Kovacs says that as full-time positions are rolled out, some part-time contracts simply will not be renewed. “There’s a lot of anxiety among the part-time faculty right now because of these plans,” Kovacs said. He added that, as the university reduces its reliance on part-time labor, “some part-time people won’t be here in three years.”
The timing of the proposal has also shaped how some faculty interpret it. Wisch said the proposal came after LMU’s “union busting,” making the university’s message feel less like collaboration and more like an overly simplified solution to demands faculty raised when organizing.
As a result, Wisch characterizes the university’s message as: “Well, don’t be mad at us, we’re giving you what you want, more full-time positions.”
Harrison, even while praising parts of the staffing proposal, is also sharply critical of LMU’s position regarding the union. She says LMU doesn’t recognize the bargaining unit and that SEIU likely cannot formally support the plan because the union sees the restructuring as an unfair labor practice.
“I don’t see union busting as compatible with a claim to concern for social justice,” Harrison says. “While some non-tenure-track faculty may be supportive of the content of this faculty staffing plan, fewer will say that publicly because SEIU rejects LMU’s claim that there is no union.”
Some faculty say the lack of a clear transition process has raised fears that competitive searches could be used to exclude outspoken union supporters.
“A lot of people feel this will be used to weed out the troublemakers, while at the same time pretending ‘this is what you wanted,’” Wisch said, while noting the importance of relationships in higher education.
Kovacs directly associates LMU’s planning with broader pressures in higher education. He says LMU, like many universities, is trying to prepare for enrollment declines, fewer college-age students, declining birth rates, rising student debt concerns, and changing views of the value of a degree.
“Every university right now is trying to make tough choices in preparation for the demographic cliff,” Kovacs explains. “LMU has to prepare for that.”
For Wisch, though, the broader pressures facing higher education do not answer the immediate question facing current instructors: whether a proposal meant to create stability would protect the faculty already teaching at LMU.
