A Letter From Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Member

Dear Loyola Administration,

Loyola’s non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty have worked past our contract expiration since June 30, and negotiations remain stalled. The union has brought forward proposals that would place Loyola at the forefront of reimagining higher education. Management has delayed or rejected the union’s proposals, and most recently proposed that we could be fired with two weeks’ notice mid-semester.

I’ll admit I once shared some of management’s doubts. Could Loyola sustain lighter teaching loads? Do we deserve significant raises? Isn’t any contract better than none? 

But as I listened to colleagues and looked at the data, I realized the problem is bigger than a stalled contract: universities were built for tenure-track faculty, even as many of us now work off the tenure track.

We are told we “fill the gaps,” yet we are the ones teaching core classes, retaining students and keeping programs running. Our default teaching load of four classes per semester is exhausting, and if we want any chance at advancement we must take on professional development and service as well. 

Students notice. They fail out of core classes when no one has time to help them. They fall through cracks when professors are too drained to advocate. They miss opportunities because no one is given time — or pay — to facilitate them.

Meanwhile, we are reminded that we aren’t paid to do research. Yet scholarship fuels our teaching, and many of us publish or even win grants at great personal cost. I managed to secure a book contract while teaching at eight classes per year, but I have ended many semesters wondering how much longer I can do this. 

I know I could earn more, with greater security, outside higher education. I stay because I love scholarship, and I love seeing students experience those “ah-ha” moments that come with learning a new perspective.

But my story is just one point in a constellation of data. The larger picture is sobering. Nationally, 70% of instructional staff are contingent. At Loyola, full-time NTT ranks have risen 360% since 2003. 

Yet we still receive less support, less pay and less access to resources than our tenure-track colleagues. Despite working to secure a book contract and being named as an alternate for a national research fellowship, I’m not eligible to apply for a summer stipend or sabbatical because I’m off the tenure track. 

Here, NTTs make up nearly half of full-time faculty but receive only 21.6% of the salary outlay. We bring in millions in tuition revenue and even major grants, but our professional development funds amount to $600 a year with the option to reapply only if funds remain. 

This disparity communicates loudly, “Your work is not valued; you should get less because you are worth less; those who cannot do, teach.” These messages create an artificial divide between teacher and scholar. They are why faculty burn out and students suffer.

If our proposals seem unreasonable, it’s because the current system is unreasonable and unsustainable. Higher education is at a crucial juncture. It’s time for universities to decide to either work with NTT faculty to build fairer structures or continue exploiting us at the cost of both faculty well-being and student success.

We aren’t asking to win at management’s expense. We’re asking for recognition that the perception of NTT faculty as second-class professionals exists, that it has material consequences and that Loyola has the chance to lead by addressing it. Meeting us halfway wouldn’t only settle this contract – it would set a precedent for the future of academia.

Signed,
A scholar, teacher and NTT faculty member

Julie K. Chamberlin, PhD