This country was founded on violent rebellion. Our constitution drips with the blood of the American Revolution and our success as a nation is rooted in the genocide of Native Americans and centuries of legalized homicide, rape, and unthinkable brutality to enforce the chattel slavery of African-Americans. This is our reality. Racism, violent crime, rape culture, gun worship and police brutality are part of an American nightmare for many. It is up to each generation to take steps to heal these wounds.

Most cops are good. They are our friends, neighbors and family. But, like civilian criminals, there are also criminal police who cannot be allowed to violate policy and/or brutalize the public with impunity. Many citizens (especially young Black and Hispanic males) live in communities terrorized by both gang violence AND by police brutality. This terror is heightened when we embed increasingly militarized police forces [who often have little connection to the communities they serve and are sworn to protect] into places like Ferguson to enforce discriminatory policies (racial profiling, stop-and-frisk, broken window, etc.) that disproportionately target and harass law-abiding people of color. The lack of trust between some communities (especially those defined by poverty and/or race) and law enforcement is diminished even more by the conflicts of interests when local prosecutors defend police officers accused of violating that sacred trust. Why are people protesting? Because many blacks, browns and whites are simply sick of it.

Why are we striking?

I will try to keep this short; but, there a many complex issues involved in the faculty strike Tuesday and Wednesday. I do not pretend to understand fully all of the complex pension issues.  I will make two points on which I have strong feelings.

Point A.  You have two categories of teachers.  (1) The traditional tenured [or tenure-track] faculty and (2) the non-tenure track, part-time, adjunct faculty, sometimes called lecturers.

(1) In short, tenure is based on a probationary period (5 years) where PhDs must produce a high level of scholarship…publish or be fired.  After tenure, it is difficult to be fired.  I am part of that system.  In plain language, the tenure system ensures that I can say and teach whatever the hell I want in my classroom.  Students can demand the truth and tenured professors need not be worried about getting fired for challenging the status quo.  After all, “the truth don’t always rhyme.”  This is what higher learning is all about.  This is academic freedom.  I am part of that traditional system.  I earned tenure almost 20 years ago.

(2) One the other hand, there are non-tenure-track instructors (lecturers, adjuncts, usually part-time).  These are teachers who are hired for a single course,  a semester, or for an academic year.  They are both part-time and full-time and they are NOT eligible to be promoted with tenure.  They have no job security.  They can easily be discarded; they simply are not offered a job the following year.

Students often do not know the difference.  We all have PhDs and students call all of us Dr. or Professor.

Today there are fewer tenured and tenure-track professors.  This is a national trend in the increasing corporatization of higher education.  For example, in 1969, “78 percent of…college…teachers were tenured or tenure-track professors, with non-tenure-track making up the rest.”  “By 2009, the figures had nearly flipped, with a third of faculty tenured or tenure-track and two-thirds ineligible for tenure.”  Today, adjunct/part-time instructors “make up about 75 percent of ALL college instructors…” Many do not have health insurance.  “They work for low pay and under conditions that hinder their efforts to help students.”  Many of the lecturers at UIC are paid $30.000 a year.

Our Union is asking UIC to guarantee lecturers a decent wage and multi-year contracts.  Think about it: we ask someone to come teach at UIC (sometimes uprooting their families) and usually do not offer them multi-year contracts.  Talented instructors with whom you take classes during your freshman or sophomore years are usually no longer around during your senior year when you need a letter of recommendation.  Can you blame them for moving on to a new job with better benefits and more job security?  They deserve decent contracts.  You deserve professors who are not worried about having a job next semester.  Instructors who do not have to leave UIC and rush to their second or third job.

Point B. The tenured faculty, the tenure-track faculty, and the lecturers ALL want more money.  Plain and simple.  We have received only one raise in five years.  But, at the same time, UIC is constantly hiring more and more administrators?  Full-time tenured and tenure-track positions are disappearing as administrators keep hiring more “suits.”  Since 2007, YOUR “tuition at UIC has increased more than 30%; there are fewer tenured professors teaching, but the number of well-paid administrators on campus has increased by 10%, none of them active in classroom teaching. Over the same period, enrollment has increased by 13% and the student-to-faculty ratio has increased by 10%.”   The administration is charging the students more, offering students fewer classes, and paying the faculty less?

Two years ago we formed a labor Union to address these issues.  Our Union, Faculty United, has been negotiating for 18 months, almost 60 bargaining sessions.  We have gotten almost nowhere.  So, the faculty are striking tomorrow and Wednesday.  I cannot promise that we will not strike again later in the semester.  Another strike, or a prolonged strike, might make it difficult for some students to graduate on time. That would be terrible for students!

This is a bad situation.  I have two daughters (Dabney and Kelsey) who recently graduated from college (Stanford and Howard) and my son (Ryan) currently attends Urbana.  Both my wife and I incurred real debt in college.   I know first-hand that your education is costing you a fortune and many of you will be repaying loans for decades.  You should not have to deal with a faculty labor dispute.  You should be pissed that we are striking tomorrow…

You should also know that not all faculty joined the Union.  Not all faculty will strike.  I will not cross the picket line tomorrow, I will be ON the picket line tomorrow.

By Any Means Necessary

Professor Lyles

Summarizing some of what I have read and experienced, it seems that I am quickly becoming a dinosaur under the corporatization of higher education. In 1969, “78 percent of…college…instructional staff was comprised of tenured or tenure-track professors, with adjunct faculty making up the rest.” “By 2009, the figures had nearly flipped, with a third of faculty tenured or on the tenure track and two-thirds ineligible for tenure.” Today, adjunct/part-time instructors “make up a whopping 75 percent of ALL college instructors, with their average pay between $20,000 and $25,000 annually.” Many do not have health insurance. “They work for low pay and under conditions that hinder their efforts to help students.” Half of the courses in my own department are taught by talented and dedicated adjunct and/or part-time instructors. As tenured faculty we cannot leave our colleagues out in the cold. After all, they do most of the real work. They deserve more job security and a decent wage. I enjoy my tenure, I love to teach, I’m still inspired to do research, but I did not sign up to work in a sweat shop. Fuck this!

“On the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and said no…that door is closed.” –Pope Francis, July 29, 2013.

Okay Frank, I see you. After all, you aren’t continuing to promote a male-dominated power structure that views ALL women as inferior. You just ain’t got no pink smoke?

Reconcilable dilemma.  As a college professor, I indirectly pay my mortgage, buy groceries, put gas in my car, and otherwise provide for my family [in part] on the backs of indebted college students who are drowning in student loans and increasingly struggling to find satisfactory employment.  Students for whom the rate of return of a college degree is decreasing.  Higher education (in public universities) should be FREE.  “Free” like public elementary and high schools that are financed mostly by the State via property taxes, etc.  I am not referring to MOOCs (massive open online courses), I mean zero tuition for traditional face-to-face classroom higher education.  20k, 30k, even 40k a year at a public university does not make it “public,” it makes it “impossible” for most.

Taxpayer costs per year (per inmate) in state prisons in California is about $47,000, Illinois is $38,000, New York is $60,000, and so on.  Costs of attendance at the Univ. of Illinois-Urbana this year is $29,500.  I KNOW there are all sorts of issues with this commonly made false equivalence.  And, I don’t want bad guys roaming the streets.  But damn, could college students at least get an interest free loan?  It is about priorities; i.e., government investment in corrections and decreasing support for higher education.  Prison for inmates is “free.”  Public higher education should also be free for qualified students…even French Lit majors.

I’m rethinking my use of the term “black on black” crime.  For the last few weeks some have complained there is too much [disproportionate] attention on the Trayvon Martin murder and not enough on the day-to-day murder of blacks and browns; especially in Chicago.  Could it be that the media simply does not lend itself as heavily to so-called “black-on-black” crime?  Show me one poll that suggests citizens in these communities are NOT outraged!  The media and others’ use the therm “black-on-black” to suggest a relative “unimportant” of such murders.  Have you ever heard the term “white-on-white” crime?  If not, then “black-on-black” is perhaps inherently racist.  “Black-on-Black” and “gang related” are terms that operate often to minimize and routinize the senseless killings of minority youth.  The media refrain “black-on-black” sets these crimes apart from “real” murders and categorizes them in a fashion that often trivializes them and makes them appear less newsworthy. 

Elsewhere [on facebook]  I wrote “Zimmerman was found innocent of the charges.”  A former student replied “Zimmerman wasn’t found innocent. There is no such finding made by American courts. He was found not guilty…”  From my social science perspective as a social being with emotions and a warm heart (not just academic training) this is a distinction without a difference. The technical and real distinctions between “innocent” and “not guilty” are often no more than legal fallacies that disingenuous lawyers (courts and judges) tout like the distinctions between de facto and de jure discrimination, or, between strict scrutiny and rational relationship. These are labels we use to help make the system work. There is a presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty; however, if not proven guilty does one not retain their presumption of innocence? As one trained in the law, you must accept your rules that juries don’t find one innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish beyond doubt that one is guilty. So, if the prosecution fails this task, the person is not guilty of the charges. To me, this means they retain their presumed innocence. All of this is rubbish, semantic legalese we use to justify our political-legal decision making processes. My academic training tells me that Zimmerman was found not guilty, but my humanity tells me he was found innocent of the charges. I trust my humanity.