Teaching was a “calling” when she had a shot at a permanent job, writes Rebecca Schuman. Now, after “two years as a slightly less-disposable faculty member, with a salary, full benefits, course-design autonomy, and my own office,” she’s returned to “dead-end adjuncting.” As a disposable teacher, she’s “hanging up” on the calling, she writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
George Washington University’s Joseph Fruscione, whose adjunct advocacy has thrust him into the public eye, told me that what “calling” he has felt to teach hasn’t changed—just his perceptions of academe. He wrote to me: “I entered with a (too) idealistic sense of it as a place of knowledge and intellectual inquiry. Being essentially cheap, renewable labor has made me feel cynical and a little angry about how universities are knowingly overusing contingent faculty while adding more administrators, provosts, and the like.”
Calling teaching a “calling” is an excuse to pay less, said Katie Guest Pryal, who teaches legal writing at the University of North Carolina.
The language of “calling” can contribute to the feminization of contingency, a California adjunct said. “My mother was a second-wave feminist and taught me to see the use of the words ‘calling’ and ‘vocation’ as excuses not to pay women for labor, especially in teaching and nursing.”