The Faculty Welfare Committee of Fairfield University, a chapter of the American Association of University Professors-AFT
Share
FWC Newsletter 2/18/25
Published 11 months ago • 19 min read
Faculty Welfare Committee
Fairfield University AAUP-AFT
From the FWC
Hello, everyone--
Today or tomorrow you will be receiving a flyer in your mailbox to post on your door this Wednesday, Feb. 19, in support of the Day of Action sponsored by Labor for Higher Education, which is a coalition of many educational labor unions and organizations including AAUP (with the 2024 statement of unity here). Here is a recording of the Feb. 13 strategy call. The theme is "Hands Off Our Healthcare, Our Research, Our Jobs."
Demonstrations for Feb. 19 Day of Action will be occurring around the country:
Without mass resistance, these attacks will result in layoffs, program & school closures, and devastation to local economies that depend on the economic impact of these colleges and universities. Lifesaving research on topics such as cancer, viral pandemics, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s won’t be completed, or even begun. Higher ed workers – long facing growing job precarity – are now facing unprecedented job insecurity. On February 19 higher education workers, students, and allies will get in the streets and loudly proclaim: Hands off our healthcare, research, and jobs! "
If, as a researcher, your funding is being affected, let me know--there is a group of CT AAUP chapters who are organizing a unified approach to this serious issue. They had a group call last week with the Connecticut Attorney General. They are also organizing Connecticut actions related to the Day of Action.
We are also providing a forum for faculty to contribute short statements of 800 words or fewer about these changes. Here are the first 19 comments, and I'll publish a second list of them after the cut-off date of Feb. 21. Please feel free to use this link and to write your opinions about the proposal, and your contribution may be anonymous or signed.
I am in favor of setting a promotional structure for NTT. However, I believe that using the same titles as in the tenure track process may bring about confusion for all. From working on hiring a NTT, I understand that the salary ranges are the same.To make the process equitable for TT and NTT, it would help to have clearly outlined requirements for the promotion process, a similar rigorous process, and a committee for promotion comprised of NTT peers. Publishing is a rigorous process and not a guaranteed process. I think publishing should be required if there is a promotion process for NTT. The publications should be related to pedagogy or service as their main function are to teach and serve. I also agree that the NTT, if eligible for promotion, should receive similar support in resources to be successful.
I think there is a very reasonable concern among the faculty that the creation of the new Teaching Professor track represents a future back-door threat to the existence of tenure at the university. Speaking as a NTT faculty member: the ONLY faculty with absolute and full academic freedom are the tenured faculty. I know Christine reiterated during the GF meeting there is academic freedom for all Fairfield faculty; while admirable, that is simply a verbal expression of current university policy. It is not guaranteed. Tenured faculty have a layer of protection enjoyed by no other category of university employee, and it is increasingly important to make sure that that category not only endures, but grows, without a new track siphoning off tenure lines.
Promotional criteria for non-tenure track instructors should be based, in large measure, on student evaluations. Students are our consumers and their parent are our customers. All too often, higher education seems to lose track of the value proposition offered to its most important stakeholders. And yet, it seems the Administration rarely considers or even reads IDEA and other student evaluations. Department Chairs and Administration should be asked to review such student evaluations as an important element when constructing promotional criteria for all instructors, not just non-tenure track instructors.
- NTT faculty deserve improved status and job security. - Other Universities have these types of categories. Fairfield is maturing into a national university. This is part of the process. - One person's prestige or salary does not diminish another's prestige or salary. - Many POPs are actually not POPs but teachers. They are PhDs; not long-time private or govt sector employees with that type of expertise. The new teaching professor category will fix this problem. - The new category does not mean that the total number or percentage of TT faculty will change. The key to getting more TT faculty is replacing all the VAPs with TT appointments. All the VAPs are essentially budget lines for TT that should be filled. - The increased emphasis on research means that FFU will not/can not replace TT faculty with teaching faculty. Reputational effects would be too significant. - Having a professional teaching track will allow for longer term teaching faculty. This will enhance the ability of Chairs to plan teaching coverage. It might also make it easier to reduce the teaching loads of TT faculty.
POP's should have opportunities for promotion just like tenure track faculty. The requirements for each type of position is different so the requirements for promotion in each position should fit the position. I have been here for almost ten years with no real option for promotion. If were to become an associate professor this year, I would have received a $13,000 salary raise plus subsequent yearly percentage increases. If i was tenure track, this could have happened several years ago. I have a lot respect for my tenured and tenure track peers. However, I do not feel that I am any less valuable as a member of the university than any of them.
While I agree that NTT faculty should have a pathway to promotion, this proposal makes the tenure track void of any benefit. Of most concern is that there is no “one and done” clause for NTT promotion to Associate as there is for TT promotion to Associate. This is not only unethical, but an egregious misstep if we are to value workers and especially working mothers with pre-K children. The proposal disincentivizes the tenure-track. Most women are hired in our early 30s and must decide if we will have children or wait until tenure. With a superior NTT pathway, one which I would have gladly taken when my children were young (no research, no pressure, no risk yet the same benefits, title, and pay), I don’t see how any woman who planned to have children would elect to take the tenure-track route, especially since there is virtually no way for NTT to lose their jobs or face consequences if their attempt at promotion is unsuccessful. My pre-tenure years with pre-K children were difficult, and I left them on weekends and in daycare to earn tenure – otherwise, I would have lost my job. These years can never be returned. If NTT may choose their own timetable for promotion, then TT faculty must be allowed an unlimited probationary period, and an unlimited number of attempts at promotion.
Thank you to the Faculty Secretary and all who have worked on bringing this document to the general faculty. We are grateful for your hard work. As we are moving forward with the proposal, I want to register my concern regarding the difference in tenure and promotion criteria for tenure track professors versus Teaching Professors. While scholarship is one of the important aspects for tenure track and tenured professors along with teaching and service, the description for Teaching Professors appears to have less requirements. This brings us to the questions of equity and pay. Should these two sets of promotions lead to differences in pay? Thank you.
PoP faculty definitely deserve promotion paths that give salary increases and more contract security. But in using the same rank and salary structure as the TT we are devaluing the labor of research, the pressures to publish, and by extension the value of research, without question. For one, this structure would set in stone the expected time commitment that is expected for research labor for those on TT: it is what one can accomplish during each semester, with one less course, and on sabbaticals or pre tenure leaves. Same pay, same rank, same time commitments. To expect summer labor would be unethical, and possibly grounds for lawsuit, which would in turn cut research production at least in half. No one I know of on the TT could have gotten tenure without 40 hours a week of summer work in addition to the sabbatical and course release. The argument will in all these cases be that “tenure” is the difference. That one does all that extra labor and placing of one’s career at risk on an up and out track because tenure is this immeasurable value. This is no longer true either in the sense of academic freedom (see current climate!) nor guarantee of employment. Plus on that score we need statistics on how many PoP faculty beyond their 3rd year have been non renewed vs how many tenure denials. That is a metric of actual security comparison. Additionally I worry that NTT will much more easily attain full Professor given the high research demands for full that leave many trapped at associate rank. And hence that’s yet another reason why NTT path is preferable. There are many more reasons. Plus we will never adhere to the 75/25. History shows this.
My NTT colleagues in the math department are remarkable individuals who do exceptional work and contribute greatly to the growth of our programs. I admire their tireless efforts, especially given the challenging work conditions they face here. Unfortunately, their contributions are often undervalued and overlooked. As a university we are rather late to this, both major universities I was part of prior to joining Fairfield (and many many other universities) have recognized the importance of work of their NTT faculty and established long-term teaching track positions with ranks and promotion opportunities. I am excited about the proposal and fully support amending the faculty handbook with the proposed changes.
1. Why are we considering this when we are well over the required ratio of FT to NTT? 2. While I support a pathway to promotion, the criteria are not equivalent to the TT promotion criteria and should not be compensated equally. It is really unfair to dedicated long serving Assoc Profs who are doing good work.
I would be interested to see more details on the process and timeline of the procedures to apply for promotion from one rank to another for non-tenure track faculty. Is the timeline and procedure the same? Are the letters of recommendation the same? Should an Assistant POP who has served 6 years in this position and wishes to apply for Associate POP begin the process this summer to submit a dossier in November?
I very much like the idea of a career path for NTT, both Teaching Instructor and Professor of the Practice. I am also in favor of the requirement for a terminal degree. I would like to propose that a terminal degree could either in the appointee's field or in a related field. I do so thinking that would open up these opportunities to a broader pool of candidates.
While establishing a promotional structure for non-tenure-track faculty may help remedy equity concerns, it also risks further undermining the tenure system. Such an alternative career track could weaken the case for both filling existing tenure lines and creating new ones. At a time when tenure is under increasing attack, we must be cautious not to adopt policies that inadvertently accelerate its decline. Rather than implementing a two-tier faculty system, the university should focus on strengthening tenure while addressing equity issues for non-tenure-track faculty.
*The University needs to bring return to 75/25 tenure/NTT across campus *There should not be a push on promotion for NTT until this happens. *NTT deserves promotion, indeed *Promotion should not be placed on the R&T Committee; a separate General Faculty committee should be created *Conversations need to be held with the Salary Committee, as well *Administration needs to state their stance on Fairfield University as a research institution and explain the reasoning behind hiring non-research faculty. *Teaching and Service needs to remain high for ALL faculty *Administration has broken the 75/25 rule and, therefore, they should take responsibility for promotion of NTT faculty
I've been full-time faculty for over twenty years. At least half of those years have been spent on a 4-4 teaching load with no pre-tenure research leave and no sabbatical. I get how hard it is to produce meaningful research/creative work on a 4-4 load, a load many if not most NTT professors carry, a load that has us memorizing approximately 100 student names each semester and grading around the clock. But when I manage to produce research/creative work, it makes my teaching better and I am glad to work around childcare to give my summers, weekends, and holidays to making that happen. Sad to see that faculty are being pitted against faculty such that anyone tenured or tenure-track, who understands the mortal fear of "up or out" when one makes one’s case to Rank and Tenure, would not see the equity of setting up a system whereby full-time non-tenure track faculty who teach the same load as VAPs but without the research expectations (and often with significant reductions in load) and without term limits will be compensated the same and enjoy the same job security as colleagues who have shown conspicuous excellence in teaching, research, and service and have been vetted by external experts in their field. To be clear: if we pass this as it currently stands, the first six years on the job are FAR more insecure for a colleague in a TT position than for one who is NTT. Where is the equity in that? We might as well cancel “up or out” for TT colleagues and allow them the same opportunity to apply for promotion as frequently as they wish. Also confusing is why we are continuing to hire for positions that do not carry research/creative expectations while at the same time celebrating faculty-sponsored research/creative work so emphatically with our annual symposiums and our discussions about elevating our status to a research-two institution. For anyone paying attention, the initiative seems to be an attempt to do away with tenure altogether. I can't think of a faculty colleague who doesn’t believe in rewarding and promoting those who do conspicuously excellent work. I certainly do and I will not be supporting this motion as it currently stands. I trust that when this comes down to a vote—and it feels far too early for that--it is a secret ballot. People need to be able to vote their conscience.
I support a pathway to promotion for our NTT faculty members. It is absolutely needed and the sooner we can implement something the better. However, having different requirements for ranks (but the same salary) is something that I don't currently support. Specifically, the 37K increase to the rank of Professor (Tenured, Teaching, PoP) is life-changing. And I suspect if we look at the data, and ask why our tenured colleagues remain at Associate for prolonged periods of time, the main reason is a pause in scholarship. And scholarship is only required in one track. Frequently, that pause occurs because faculty are doing large amounts of leadership in service and / or teaching / curricular initiatives; valuable work that would allow for advancement in the other tracks. Many of us also mentor students in research labs in STEM disciplines, and working with students, although prioritized and highlighted by the administration, slows down our publication of the research. For these reasons, the plan as it stands now is not equitable. I would have preferred to see an Associate II rank (in between Associate and Full) that required excellence in teaching and research from all tracks. And then retain the scholarship piece for Full for all tracks. Many faculty spend entire summers, unpaid, trying to make progress towards scholarship in between curricular and administrative demands. Because scholarship is reviewed externally, it's a very different, very substantial hurdle. And I suspect having colleagues switch tracks (to attain more salary, which also contributes to retirement timeline) is going to be prohibited. I hope changes can be made that can speak to this.
Greetings, I am writing in full support of the proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook regarding full-time Non-Tenure-Track (NTT) faculty. Though I write currently as a full-time member of the faculty, I am confident I also express the aspirations of most of the Adjunct faculty, which was my own status for nearly five years at Fairfield University. This proposal is an important and necessary step toward strengthening Fairfield’s academic environment, supporting faculty stability, and ensuring our long-term competitiveness. Fairfield University has a unique opportunity to lead rather than follow in how it structures faculty employment. Many universities rely heavily on adjuncts, who often juggle multiple jobs with little institutional connection. This proposal moves Fairfield toward a more sustainable, student-centered model by ensuring more faculty are full-time, engaged members of the university. This change is especially urgent given the shifting landscape of higher education. The number of college-age students is shrinking, and younger generations view traditional education differently than before. With online learning and alternative career paths growing, universities must provide tangible value beyond just a degree—and that starts with committed, high-quality faculty. Full-time instructors who build lasting relationships with students will make Fairfield stand out in an increasingly competitive market.
Students thrive when they have faculty who are fully invested in their success, available for mentoring, and engaged in university life. Under the current adjunct-heavy model, many professors—through no fault of their own—simply can’t be as present. They may be teaching at multiple institutions or unsure if they will have a job next semester. By offering full-time, long-term positions with a clear pathway for advancement, Fairfield is making a commitment not just to faculty, but to the students they teach. Faculty who feel valued and secure in their jobs are more likely to: • Build lasting mentorship relationships with students. • Contribute to campus culture, rather than just teaching and leaving. • Stay at Fairfield long-term, creating a stronger academic community. This is not just about employment contracts—it’s about making sure Fairfield students have consistent, high-quality instruction from educators who are truly part of the university.
Other schools that have failed to adapt to the changing higher ed landscape (some very similar to Fairfield) are already feeling the consequences. Some have faced declining enrollment, faculty layoffs, and financial instability. Fairfield has the chance to get ahead of these challenges by ensuring we have a strong, committed faculty base. This proposal also makes Fairfield more attractive to prospective faculty. Right now, many highly qualified educators are forced into adjunct work despite their dedication and expertise. If Fairfield offers a clear, stable career path, we will be able to attract and retain top talent who might otherwise go elsewhere. Additionally, having a primarily full-time faculty allows Fairfield to market itself as a place where students are taught by engaged, career educators—not a revolving door of part-time instructors. This will matter more and more as families weigh their options in an increasingly competitive education market.
For this proposal to succeed, it is essential that the guidelines for hiring and promotion are clear. Faculty should understand exactly what is expected of them to secure and maintain a full-time NTT position. The current proposal takes important steps in that direction, but going forward, Fairfield should: • Ensure promotion criteria are well-defined and consistently applied. • Establish a transparent evaluation process so faculty know how to advance. • Clarify the role of NTT faculty in university governance and decision-making. A full-time NTT track is a great step, but it must be built to last—which means making sure faculty feel both valued and fairly evaluated. Final Thoughts: Fairfield has always prided itself on providing an exceptional educational experience. This proposal strengthens that commitment by ensuring students are taught by faculty who are invested in their success and in the university’s future. By approving these changes, Fairfield can position itself as a leader in faculty employment practices, create a more stable and engaged academic community, and give students the best possible education. This is the right move—not just for faculty, but for the entire Fairfield community. I strongly encourage the General Faculty and Board of Trustees to approve this proposal and take a bold step toward securing Fairfield’s future. Respectfully submitted, Matthew D. Glassman, Ph.D. Visiting Assistant Professor Religious Studies
As a Professor of the Practice for many years, I have an opinion about the rank of the position. I feel that there is no security in the position and "we" as NTT should have the ability to be promoted without our role at Fairfield. I commit to the college as I hold practice outside of the University which contributes greatly to my teaching and the students. Many non tenure faculty come to the University for the "LOVE" of teaching, not for the monetary gains and we should be recognized in some way. When I came to Fairfield, I was assigned 'Assistant POP" and never promoted. I published, participated in many committees, and taught in the UG and Graduate program because I wanted to and never did I receive an opportunity to be promoted. I am really unsure why I assigned the title of "Assistant" and not "Associate" coming to the University with at least 15 years of teaching experience prior to FFU. I feel passionate about non-tenure track and more availability for advancement. Thank you.
Update from Glean Discussion
On Jan. 29, 2025, the Humanities Institute hosted a general information and discussion session about Glean, the software application being used for transcription of classes by the OAA. Professors reported concern about the ability for students to share transcripts, with faculty particularly worried in our present era about political or controversial topics being shared without their consent. (The University Academic Honesty Policy allows for serious consequences for recording classes without consent.)
Professors report that because Glean produces a verbatim transcript, this can produce a lengthy document, which can overwhelm students, especially students with accommodations for executive functioning; student note-takers are much more able to pull out main points and create outlines and overviews. A faculty member shared with me that Glean has a partnership with Amazon and uses Amazon Transcribe, and may therefore be using our materials to train AI. (If someone would like to dig into this and investigate, let me know!)
Other CT and National Events
March 7: March for Science
Rally in DC and in marches around the country, sponsored by Stand Up for Science.
March 10: Digital Safety Workshop
MAR 10 @ 3 pm
PEN Digital Safety Workshop: There are tangible steps that we can all take to mitigate the risk or severity of online abuse campaigns. We will assess our digital footprint and discuss ways that we can take control of our personal information. We will "think like doxxers" in order to discover what information about us is available online, including on our social media accounts, and what we can do to remove it.
April 5: Connecticut in-person AAUP State Conference on Defending Higher Education, Wesleyan College
Saturday, April 5, 2025 (9:30 am - 4:00 pm)
Wesleyan University
The Frank Center for Public Affairs
Middletown, CT
Join us for the Connecticut State Conference-AAUP Meeting for panels and presentations on organizing strategies for collective bargaining and advocacy chapters, academic freedom in the current moment, CT state legislative budgets, and more!
Speakers include:
Michael DeCesare, National AAUP Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, & Governance
Bethany Letiecq, AAUP/AFT Local 6741 Vice President
Free and open to AAUP members and non-members. Program and registration details to follow. Reach out to Flo Hatcher, Connecticut State Conference Executive Director, by email (keith.hatcher@gmail.com) with any questions.
Event co-sponsored by Connecticut State Conference-AAUP, with support from Collective Bargaining, Advocacy and At-Large AAUP Chapters in Connecticut, and hosted by the Wesleyan AAUP Chapter.
AAUP Joins Lawsuit to Block Trump's Unlawful and Unconstitutional DEI Orders
On Feb. 3, 2025, the National AAUP joined a lawsuit along with other organizations to a diverse and inclusive academic environment.(Text of the suit itself can be seen here.) The suit itself states, "“In the United States, there is no king,” the lawsuit states. “The President can exercise only those powers the Constitution grants to the executive, and only in ways that do not violate the rights the Constitution grants to the American people. In his crusade to erase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility from our country, President Trump cannot usurp Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, nor can he silence those who disagree with him by threatening them with the loss of federal funds and other enforcement actions.”
Without any definitive criteria or information, any of the over 130 colleges and universities in the United States with endowments over $1 billion are potentially in the crosshairs of the order. The AAUP has long advocated for diversity in higher education, including a diverse faculty and student body. "
The State of Connecticut offers guidance on protecting k-12 students that may be helpful, emphasizing that FERPA protects "personally identifiable student information, including student and family names and addresses. Therefore, if a school district receives any requests for student information, they should consult guidance provided by the district’s legal counsel and adhere to the scope of these protections"
The site also recommends that these are things that can be done if an ICE agent visits campus:
Report the visit to DPS
Request and record immigration agents’ identification, including their name, badge or ID number, telephone number and business card.
Ask an agent if they have a judicial warrant to support their request and, if so, to produce such warrant.
We promote faculty welfare, broadly defined, through chapter programs and activities designed to advance academic freedom, advance the economic and professional status of the faculty, encourage faculty participation in governance, and inform the community about AAUP standards and policy statements to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good.
Resources for Faculty
The Research Support Consortium recommends that we create a "Researcher Support Team" in case of external attacks, and we also have campus-wide policies on academic freedom and freedom of speech, as well as policies for what to do when academic freedom is threatened. You can find these in the Journal of Record and the Handbook, and we will be drawing together into a handout as part of the Freedom of Speech Working Group. We will reach out to the administration and continue to investigate this and put together more guidance in the coming weeks.
Faculty Welfare Committee Fairfield University AAUP-AFT From the FWC Executive Committee Hello everyone, We're in a contract year, so you'll be hearing more from us about the issues at the center of this year's collegial discussions between the administration and the Faculty Salary Committee, which will culminate in a Memo of Understanding (MOU) that will be presented to the General Faculty in Spring 2026. The MOU is a key document that describes compensation, raises, health benefits, and...
Faculty Welfare Committee Fairfield University AAUP-AFT From the FWC Executive Committee Hello everyone, We're in a contract year, so you'll be hearing more from us about the issues at the center of this year's collegial discussions between the administration and the Faculty Salary Committee, which will culminate in a Memo of Understanding (MOU) that will be presented to the General Faculty in Spring 2026. The MOU is a key document that describes compensation, raises, health benefits, and...
Faculty Welfare Committee Fairfield University AAUP-AFT From the FWC Executive Committee Hello everyone, Welcome back to Fall semester in an extremely trying year. Amid these challenges, we are stronger together, and we are looking forward to welcoming you into our campus chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the Faculty Welfare Committee. If you haven't joined yet, you can join our chapter at this web link! I attended a meeting of AAUP chapters across CT this week,...
