Education Faculty union movement gains momentum
Dow expands toxicology research labs Dr. Larry W. Rampy pushes laboratory animals into a walk-in inhalation chamber, one of 12 at Dow Chemical U.S.A.'s new toxicology and industrial hygiene research facility at Midland, Mich. The recently completed $3.9 million, 47,000-sq-ft expansion more than doubles Dow's Midland capabilities for research in those fields. The walk-in chambers are used primarily for studying long-term exposure to suspected carcinogens. Dr. Etcyl H. Blair, Dow's director of health and environmental research, believes they are the first in the U.S. large enough to hold statistically significant numbers of experimentals and at the same time meet Occupational Health & Safety Act requirements for the protection of people studying cancer-producing materials. Double doors, interlocks, a separate air system, and reduced air pressure in the chambers help ensure that contaminated air doesn't escape to surrounding laboratory areas.
"The 1970's may belong to faculty activism as the 1960's did to student activism," according to the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. In the past eight years, starting almost from scratch, membership has soared in faculty collective bargaining units —modeled at least in part on industrial unions. By the end of 1974, faculty members at 331 U.S. institutions of higher education (some 92,300 professional staff members) had chosen exclusive bargaining agents. One in eight schools was organized, including about 6% of four-year and 25% of two-year institutions. And an estimated 21% of all fulltime faculty was bargaining collectively. Furthermore, a survey has found that two thirds of faculty members agree that collective bargaining has a place in colleges and universities, establishing the respectability of this "professional unionism." Now, a comprehensive report analyzing this major new campus development has appeared. Entitled "Faculty Bargaining—Change and Conflict," the 290-page report was prepared for the Carnegie Commission and the Ford Foundation by Dr. Joseph W. Garbarino, director of the Institute of Business & Economic Research at the University of California, Berkeley, in association with Dr. Bill Aussieker of California State College, San Bernardino. Copies are available from McGraw-Hill Book Co. The report discusses four central questions: • Why do faculty members organize? • Is faculty unionism inevitable? • Is faculty unionism irreversible? • What are its effects? Garbarino views the expanding faculty union movement primarily as a response to swift and dramatic changes during the 1960's in the general environment of higher education and in the structure and function of individual colleges and college systems. "Change, experienced and anticipated, is the catalyst for organization," he says. The most important environmental change was rapid expansion of higher education, followed by cessation of growth and relatively hard times. During the brief "golden age" of the late 1950's and early 1960's, faculty members gained important college policy-making powers and high public prestige, with rising aspirations regarding salaries, status, participation in college governance, and general college progress. Collapse of the educational boom began in the mid-1960's, bringing at least partial frustration of faculty expectations.
Another crucial environmental change has been passage of state laws encouraging public-employee unionism. In such states, state and municipal worker organization has grown rapidly, forcing "defensive organization by faculty to participate in the budgetary infighting." In 13 states with favorable legislation, 75% of all public institutions were organized by early 1974. Furthermore, many states have restructured their public higher educational systems, with multicampus institutions and greater centralized administrative control. Numerous individual schools have shifted structure and programs. And there has been increased pressure for faculty "accountability" to students, administrators, legislators, and the public.
Faculty unionism has soared in the past eight years Year
Schools organized
Faculty members
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
23 37 70 138 177 245 285 310 331
5,200 7,000 14,300 36,100 47,300 72,400 84,300 87,700 92,300
a Includes all professional staff. Source: "Faculty Bargaining—Change and Conflict."
The result of all these changes and pressures, Garbarino says, has been a perceived threat at many institutions to the influence of faculty members over educational policy and programs, and over matters affecting their own status and achievements. For instance, a credible threat to tenure, the academic version of job security, "may be the most important single cause of unionization," he notes. In response, professors have unionized to increase their influence and pursue their goals more aggressively. Unionism is largely a phenomenon of public higher education (despite the generally worse financial condition of private schools). Only 2% of all private institutions are organized, whereas about 23% of public schools are. (Garbarino's explanation: there have been far fewer environmental and institutional changes and pressures felt at private schools.) The Berkeley professor cites two strongholds of faculty unionism. One is public multi-institutional state systems, which include many "emerging institutions" and community colleges, and may or may not include the major July 21, 1975C&EN
17
Specializing in
ORGANIC Df-VALENT SULFUR COMPOUNDS
r
EVANS 1 THIODIPROPIONIC , ACID i HOOCCH 2 CH 2 -S-CH 2 CH 2 COOH
ANTIOXIDANTSTABILIZER SYNERGIST FOR ANTIOXIDANTS for FOODS • FATS A«B OfiS * JWRMACEUTICAU for tfse as food aftfttfre, •. ami In footf gatteg&g
DATA SHEET AND SAMPLES AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
c\/Ar\s CHerrvexics. irvo 90 Tokeneke Road Darien, Connecticut 06820 Phone: 203-655-8741 Cable: EVANSCHEM TWX: 710-457-3356
18
C&EN July 21, 1975
established state university centers. The other is individual public institutions undergoing major academic transformations, or that have experienced what the faculty views as major administrative abuses. Two thirds of all organized faculties are in four-year colleges. Unionism is highly concentrated in a few states, with New York the center. Three fourths of unionized faculties are in New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, with the other quarter spread over 20 states. New York's public higher education is almost completely unionized. The growth of faculty unionism has been steady but slower in the past two years. However, Garbarino believes, "creeping unionism" will continue with the spread of public-employee unionism generally and passage by additional states of supportive bargaining laws for public employees. But, he stresses, "faculty unionism is not inevitable and will never be universal, even in public institutions." Elite universities, public and private, with their prestigious and individualistic faculties, are proving most resistant. ("In the abstract they're in favor of unionism—they're politically more liberal—but not for themselves," he tells C&EN.) The Berkeley professor adds that faculty unionism is probably irreversible, and is unlikely to be abandoned at a school once established. As for the effects of unionism on university policies and practices, he cites three major reasons for faculty unionization: institutional governance, tenure or job security, and salaries and other economic conditions. In governance, unions have tried to make procedures for faculty participation and consultation more formal, explicit, and contractual. Influence on policy has increased at some schools, but not beyond subjects traditional for faculty participation. With regard to tenure, unions have opened up and formalized the awarding process in some ways. Accusations have been made that unionization might lead to "a decline in faculty quality." Garbarino finds no proof of this yet, but notes that "what the unions undoubtedly have done is to slow down a sharp increase in promotion standards that many unionized institutions would have liked to introduce in the current slack faculty labor market." The effect of unions on salaries has been an equalizing one—improving the lowest most. Community colleges and state colleges have improved relative to state universities, for example, and the differential between faculty ranks has been reduced somewhat. Some educators fear that faculty quality may suffer under collective bargaining because it makes no provision to reward the outstanding teacher or scholar. However, Garbarino be-
lieves that unionism constitutes no threat to centers of academic excellence, provided state education authorities are determined to maintain them. Richard J. Seltzer, C&EN Washington
M.S. offered in industrial chemistry Although it may not be the wave of the future, at least two universities are intent on providing graduate chemistry training geared specifically to prepare the student for work in industry. Why? Largely because many students feel they should be better prepared for industrial careers. Employers tend to share this view. Two southern universities, Florida Technological University, Orlando, and Atlanta University, Atlanta, now are offering master's degrees in industrial chemistry—something new in graduate education. The two programs differ somewhat in content, but their focus is the same—to give the graduate student the skills and experience needed for a job in industry. Both Florida Tech and Atlanta cite the fact that most graduate chemistry students go on to industrial positions. And by most estimates also, most university chemistry departments still are preparing students for academic careers. Atlanta University is primarily the graduate school of the Atlanta University Center—a consortium of predominantly black schools in the Atlanta area. It was the first school in the U.S. (in fall 1973) to offer a master of science in industrial chemistry, according to Dr. Malcolm B. Polk, director of the industrial program. Previously Florida Tech claimed that its program was the first, but at the time a faculty member there says the university was unaware of Atlanta's course of study. Atlanta's program predictably includes advanced courses in organic, inorganic and physical chemistry. However, it also includes a course in polymer chemistry—something the school factored in on the advice of industry people who helped guide the formulation of the program. Experience in polymers is an obvious asset in industry where much effort goes into plastics and synthetic fibers. Moreover, the Atlanta master's curriculum provides a lecture course in industrial chemistry taught by scientists from major chemical and pharmaceutical companies, including Celanese, Tennessee Eastman, and others. Industrial scientists also conduct a required seminar series for Atlanta's master candidates. The package is rounded off by electives in business administration and internship in the chemical industry. Atlanta students have completed internships as part of the fulfillment of their degree requirements at Celanese facilities in Charlotte and Shelby,
