Faculty Equity Issues: A Case Study in Policy and Employment Insecurity

This case study examines equity issues (gender, race/ethnicity, and faculty appointment type) related to a speciﬁc policy that focuses on improving performance and ranking metrics at a public metropolitan research university. The overarching issues include the negative unintended consequences of focusing on short-term objectives at the expense of the university’s long-term mission. This article builds on a ten-year line of research regarding intentional change at large public metropolitan research universities.


Method
The data and analysis of the case study are described below.

Data
This Florida International University case study uses data from the Employee Files of the Florida Board of Governors (Florida Board of Governors, 2021) as accessed at http://accountability.fiu.edu).The study uses fundamental variables that express faculty Appointment Types, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity.

Analysis
The analyses of these data utilize descriptive statistics.The study period for these data are the five years from 2017 to 2021.The data site (http://accountability.fiu.edu)does not allow creating derived intersectional variables such as Gender and Race/Ethnicity combined, by Appointment Types.Therefore, the analysis examines separately the following: (a) Appointment Types and Gender, and (b) Appointment Types and Race/Ethnicity.

Results
Part-time faculty status is more insecure than full-time, and part-time appointments allow Administration the greatest flexibility, control, and cost savings (Kezar, DePaolo, & Scott, 2019;Robertson, 2020).Through the five-year study period (2017)(2018)(2019)(2020)(2021), the ratio of full-time faculty to part-time faculty has remained roughly 2 to 1, although a slight increase has occurred for part-time (up 1.0 point, 36.5% to 37.5 % of all faculty).This ratio of full-time and part-time faculty does not present a problem relative to the standards of most regional and professional accreditation associations.
The story of interest is the full-time faculty appointments and the intentional movement by the Administration of full-time faculty lines from Permanent (tenured or tenure-earning) to Contingent (non-tenure) (Robertson, 2020).Beginning in 2015, the Provost, with the President's approval, implemented the Resource Reallocation Policy.The policy specifies that when a full-time Permanent faculty line comes open (e.g., through the incumbent's relocation or retirement), the funding for that line goes to central Academic Affairs.The academic Department from which the line was taken can apply to Academic Affairs for return of no more than 50% of the line's funding.The application's approval is not guaranteed.None may be returned.However, even at 50%, replacing the vacated tenure line with another tenure line is essentially impossible.The funding is simply insufficient.Full-time faculty lines are switched from Permanent appointments to Contingent appointments through this process.The Resource Allocation Policy creates a pool in Academic Affairs of recurring money that is diverted to appointments that relate to the metrics of the State's performance-based funding system and to targeted national and international ranking systems.The outcome of the Resource Reallocation Policy has been to reduce the ratio of full-time Permanent faculty to full-time Contingent faculty from 1.07 to 0.79 between the implementation of the policy in 2015 to 2019 (Robertson, 2020, pp. 44-47).In other words, Contingent faculty are the clear majority among full-time faculty at FIU.This policy and practice places FIU as an outlier among Research Universities with the Carnegie Highest Research Activity designation (R1) (e.g., American Association of University Professors, 2014; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001;Bowen & Tobin, 2015;DePaola & Kezar, 2018;Finkelstein et al., 2016;Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007;Garcia, McNaughton, & Nehls, 2018;Kezar & Maxey, 2016;Levin & Shaker, 2011;Ott & Cisneros, 2015;Tkachenko & Louis, 2017).The effect of this dramatic change in full-time faculty appointments at FIU from Permanent to Contingent has included unintended negative impacts on the following: (a) breadth and quantity of scholarship, (b) research doctoral education, (c) faculty governance, and (d) reputation and rankings (Robertson, 2020, pp. 45-47).
The question here is, what are the equity issues with moving full-time faculty lines from Permanent to Contingent.Two variables are examined: gender and race/ethnicity.Are Women and Minorities overrepresented relative to White Males in Contingent faculty appointments?Gender Among all full-time faculty, Male faculty are over-represented relative to Female faculty (

Race/Ethnicity
Full-time Faculty Race/Ethnicity are reported in the data in eight categories.In all five years of the FIU case study, 2017-2021, none of three of those eight categories (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races) manifested greater than 0.8% of the total full-time faculty and are not discussed here.The findings include the following five categories (in rank order, percentage of all full-time faculty, highest to lowest, five-year average, 2017-2021; In summary, Asian and White full-time faculty are more likely during the study period (2017-2021) to have Permanent faculty appointments than Contingent faculty appointments.Black, Latinx, and Not-Reporting full-time faculty are more likely to have insecure faculty appointments (Contingent) than secure faculty appointments (Permanent).

Discussion
What this research shows is a research institution that is out of balance vis a vis its mission.The pursuit of performance metrics and rankings is important, no doubt.However, the consequences of focusing radically on these metrics and rankings in "lazar focus" (as is the cliche of the day) puts in jeopardy the fulfillment of the university's complete mission and introduces important equity challenges regarding gender and race/ethnicity.St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M. (2018).Public policy and higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access, and college success (2nd ed.).New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Table 1
White full-time faculty, you are more likely to have a Permanent appointment than a Contingent appointment (Table 2): White Permanent, 53.0% of all full-time White faculty; White Contingent, 47.0% of all full-time White faculty (five-year average, 2017-2021).If you are a Latinx full-time faculty, you are more likely to have a Contingent appointment than a Permanent appointment (Table 2): Latinx Permanent, 27.1% of all full-time Latinx faculty; Latinx Contingent, 72.9% of all full-time Latinx faculty (five-year average, 2017-2021).If you are an Asian full-time faculty, you are more likely to have a Permanent appointment than a Contingent appointment (Table 2): Asian Permanent, 71.9% of all full-time Asian faculty; Asian Contingent, 28.1% of all full-time Asian faculty (five-year average, 2017-2021).If you are a full-time faculty and did not report your Race/Ethnicity, you are more likely to have a Contingent appointment than a Permanent appointment (Table 2): Not Reported Permanent, 23.2% of all full-time Not Reported faculty; Not Reported Contingent, 76.8% of all full-time Not Reported faculty (five-year average, 2017-2021).If you are a Black full-time faculty, you are more likely to have a Contingent appointment than a Permanent appointment (Table 2): Black Permanent, 37.0% of all full-time Black faculty; Black Contingent, 63.0% of all full-time Black faculty (five-year average, 2017-2021).

Table 1
FIU Full-Time Faculty Gender and Appointment Type, 2017-2021 Note.Employee Files of the Florida Board of Governors (Florida Board of Governors, 2021) as accessed at http://accountability.fiu.edu.

Table 2
FIU Full-Time Faculty Race/Ethnicity and Appointment Type, 2017-2021