In recent years, universities across the US have created and expanded programmes of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) – ostensibly with the aim of making campuses more just, fair and free for individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and identities.
But these initiatives have – by definition, remit and resources – a very limited impact on respecting diversity, enabling equity or advancing a more inclusive community for one essential and large sector of the university: adjunct faculty.
That is because diversity programmes do little to address the structural injustice at the heart of US university policies and practices, namely the exploitation of precariously employed workers, many of whom are women, from ethnic and racial minorities or from low-income families.
This is not a small demographic, either: about 70 per cent of university faculty in the US are adjunct lecturers who lack job security, a living wage, quality, affordable healthcare and a decent pension. Some universities – such as those in the University of California system – do not contribute to social security for a substantial portion of their adjunct faculty, creating additional disadvantage for those stuck in this situation.
Women and racial minorities suffer disproportionately as a result of university practices that economically exploit adjunct faculty. They are over-represented among adjunct faculty and under-represented among tenured faculty, who, in contrast, enjoy adequate wages, health insurance, pensions and other benefits.
Currently, DEI teams lack the power and the resources to shift these policies and practices in ways that genuinely advance diversity, equity and inclusion for these minority staff.
If US universities are truly serious about diversity and inclusion, a good starting point for leadership might be to admit that the current system is built on providing job security for only about one in four faculty members – those with tenure-track positions that generally provide job security, a fair salary and reasonable benefits.
For those faculty not on the tenure track – typically teaching-focused academics who carry a heavy teaching load and minimal research responsibilities – their employment is exceedingly precarious and often characterised by exploitation and injustice in the aforementioned areas of income, pension, healthcare and benefits.
Despite the limitations placed on them by university administrations, DEI staff can be allies in encouraging universities treat their employees with fairness and equity when it comes to pay, pension and benefits.
It is not enough for universities to try to advance DEI values on the administrative side of universities while teaching faculty and other university staff – including graduate students – suffer from systemic exclusion from adequate remuneration and benefits that reflect their enormous and essential contribution to university missions and educational programming.
Until university administrations recognise that DEI efforts must include faculty and, specifically, adjunct faculty, no amount of diversity workshops and worthy rhetoric will address the fundamentally exploitative economic structure of universities that discriminates against marginalised groups – who, before embarking on an academic career, often have minimal family financial resources or savings.
Universities need to provide adjunct faculty with fair living wages, reasonable benefits and pensions – including health insurance – and job security to teaching staff whom universities increasingly rely on to do the bulk of teaching.
Only when universities practise DEI in their employment procedures for all members of the university community, and walk their DEI talk, will their claims of respecting campus diversity be taken credibly at face value.
For this to happen, DEI programmes must consider how an individual's income level impacts their ability to live a life with their basic social, economic, and health rights respected and fulfilled.
Without an income and related employment benefits that offer some level of security, a person’s ability to express their identity freely is also likely to be constrained, making it harder to participate in the collective life and culture that universities profess to value.
The stresses entailed by low levels of income and lack of health insurance further constrain the freedom that individuals have to develop and sustain their identities, with the urgency of securing practical necessities for food, housing, medical care and other basic needs taking priority. This impoverishes not only their lives as individuals but also the integrity of the university community, which suffers when its members lack the freedom to fully express themselves.
Without a sincere commitment to support all staff – both tenure track and adjunct – any statements from university presidents about how institutions and their staff are committed to respecting diversity and furthering social justice will ring hollow.
Noam Schimmel is an associate fellow at the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism in the McGill Faculty of Law and also lecturer in international and area studies at the University of California, Berkeley.