Remedies

As contract non-tenure track faculty (aka CNTT, Lecturers, Visiting Assistant Professors, Visitors, VAPs, or contingent faculty), we face a number of concerns that our tenure-track (TT) peers do not face. Some of these problems are categorized and listed below.

1. Security

A. Initial CNTT appointment for a 5-year term. Addresses many of the existing job security and visa concerns. The Faculty Senate? is already discussing switching to a 5-year cap. In practice many departments appoint CNTT faculty members for 3 or more years, so this is not a significant change for the school.
B. Priority in opportunity hires. This reduces the need for costly searches when a CNTT faculty member already exists within the department.
C. Conversion: At the end of a CNTT appointment, the CNTT faculty member would be converted to a tenure line position, with the option for the CNTT faculty member to request full or partial credit towards tenure. Again, in practice many CNTT faculty members are continually renewed for more than 3 years, so the need for continued appointments is clear.
D. Improve supports for visa applicants. Revised contract terms as discussed above promote security. Additional support from Human Resources, school lawyers, or common interest groups with TT peers would provide additional options.
E. Extend hospitality through housing support for visitors. Make affordable, temporary housing, provided by the College, available to relocating contingents for the duration of their contracts.

2. Equity with TT Peers

A. Pay equity. CNTT faculty members’ pay benchmarked to TT lines, equal to the higher of the same department's average, or the Holy Cross average. No current CNTT to receive lower salary once this comes into effect.
B. Teaching equity. Distribute courses equitably among all faculty within a department, both number of courses and which courses.
C. Research support equity. Support for CNTT faculty members’ travel, publishing fees, and acquisition of research materials, etc. add more examples I don't know about benchmarked to that for TT faculty, equal to the higher of the same department's average, or the Holy Cross average. No current CNTT to receive lower research support once this comes into effect.

3. Transparency

A. Renewal transparency. Confirm renewal on the basis of satisfactory performance and departmental need; formalize an appeal procedure to resolve cases where performance has been disputed.
B. Salary transparency. Establish a regularized and public salary schedule in which raises for each year of a contractual appointment are indexed to that year’s starting salary. Salaries to be posted in job postings.
C. Pay raises. Each year to increase at the highest of the same department's TT average, the Holy Cross TT average, or the year's current inflation rate in Massachusetts.
D. Research funding raises. Each year to increase at the highest of the same department's TT average, the Holy Cross TT average, the year's current inflation rate in Massachusetts, or the year's current inflation rate in the USA.

Conclusion

Implementing these proposed remedies would not take a large financial outlay, and would go a long way to meeting both the Catholic Social Teachings of the College, and to resolving some of the most pressing concerns from the 2020 NECHE accreditation study. Increased stability, including contract extensions, conversion, and visa support, would allow us to better attract and retain competitive faculty of color. Parity with TT faculty will allow us to retain diverse contingent faculty members. And greater transparency will help bridge the known communication gaps and erosion of trust.

We look forward to further discussion with the administration of our requests, and we hold faith that together we can achieve the more kind and caring campus that we all are devoted to.