This correspondence was with Christine Armett-Kibel, then (and still, in February 1999) dean of math and science. It records a dispute over my pay as a post-retirement part-time teacher. Its significance lies in showing the need for part-time faculty (in fact for all employees at the university) to organize for collective action, because of the arbitrariness with which administrators can otherwise deal with individual faculty members.

      I was able to tease out the information in the dean's letters, limited though it is, only because as a secure individual I was in a position to pursue the effort, to challenge her aggressively, something an untenured faculty member could not do without risk. Since I was already retired, only my hoped-for emeritus status and desired continued accommodation on campus were conceivably at risk.

      It's important to keep in mind that the dispute between the dean and me occurred during a period when part-time faculty were organizing to try to gain even a modicum of benefits. They were real part-timers, whereas I was a privileged part-timer with assured adequate retirement income, no longer dependent, as they were, on their current university pay.

      Although I attack the dean's behavior, behavior I believe both reprehensible and typical of highly-paid administrators, I am not really interested in attacking her personally, but in attacking the organizational structure which does not permit her to behave differently if she wants to retain her position. I do not consider her or other administrators to be inherently monsters. However, what is monstrous is the across-the-board commitment of "top" administrators to maintaining the enormous disparity between their paychecks and those of part-time teachers. They have had no hesitancy in enforcing extremely low pay, with no benefits, knowing that it resulted in poverty or near-povery for the least-paid teachers. This, in my view, is monstrous behavior, unobscured by the expensively tailored clothing in which they parade around on "our" campus.

      Christine Kibel was one of the seventeen individuals on the campus whose gross pay, in 1996, exclusive of medical and other benefits, was over $100,000/year. With her own pay at $105,061.32, she was adamant that she would not allocate more than $9,999.91 for me to teach the equivalent of two courses. The difference between what I demanded and what she was willing to allocate was about $2,500. Of course her stance was not against me personally, nor based on my qualifications, etc., but on her commitment to "hold the line" against part-timers' pay in general. The "No-holes-in-the-dike!" theory.

      Pay as low as $2,500 per course was not uncommon for part-time faculty. And no benefits: medical, retirement, assured employment, nothing!

      During the summer of 1997, probably in June or July, I decided rather suddenly one weekend to retire. However, the teaching assignments for the 1997-98 academic year had already been made up, and the schedule for the Fall 1997 term had also been done. I assured Len Catz, Physics Chair, that I would do "my" teaching for the academic year, despite being formally retired.

      On August 18, I met with Christine, with associate dean of science Celia Moore present, at Christine's wish. I said I would be teaching on a half-time basis, just as I had the past two academic years, and I ought to be paid at the same rate as I was at the time of formal retirement. She responded that 1) state law didn't allow that, and 2) she followed her own guidelines for paying faculty who do post-retirement teaching, and gave me to understand that it would be less than the law allowed. She wanted to know my intentions. I said I would teach the Science for Humane Survival II course--due to begin on Sept 2--just as I had the past two years, and that I would contest the pay.

      About mid-Sept Betsy Boehne of the Dept of Human Resources asked me to sign the appointment form that Christine signed on Sept 11th. I declined to do so.

      On Sept 22nd, after looking up the relevant State law, I wrote [letter 1] to Leonard Catz (Physics Chair) and Christine, stating the amounts I wanted to receive for my Fall 97 and Spring 98 teaching.

      On Sept 24th Christine wrote back [letter 2], saying she followed two of her policies in making the offer to me.

      On Sept 29th I wrote Christine [letter 3], asking for copies of her two policies, etc.

      On Sept 30th I wrote an [open letter] explaining to the Science for Humane Survival students how I would deal with the class until the conflict was resolved, and how, if we failed to resolve it, I would assign course grades. There was no resolution during the term, I had no teaching assistant, and I did follow the plan as stated in the letter.

      On Oct 14th I again wrote Christine [letter 4], reminding her of my earlier request.

      On Oct 14th Christine responded with [letter 5] and an attachment, [Guidelines for the Allocation of Part Timers].

      On Nov 13th I wrote [letter 6] to Christine, accompanied by two attachments: [Call to RESIST] and [list of contributions for 1996 and part of 1997].

      On Nov 24th Christine responded with [letter 7], saying No, she would not alter her position.

      On February 8, 1998 I wrote [letter 8], summarizing the interchange and criticizing her lack of a satisfactory response.

      On March 6th Christine wrote [letter 9], a brief note unresponsive to the points raised, with no information except that she authorized payment of $9,999.00 to me. She expressed the hope that payment of this money resolved the matter, and suggested that we might meet (again with Celia Moore) for discussion of issues, etc.

      On March 10th I wote an open letter, [Pigs and Paupers], contrasting the bloated pay of some administrators and the pauper status of some part-timers, and connecting greed with ecological catastrophe. I added two minor notes of clarification (in paragraphs 1 and 2) on 3/15. The Mass Media, the student newspaper, published this letter in the March 26, 98 issue.

      The meeting Christine suggested in her March 6th note took place on April 1st, with Celia Moore and Gary Zabel (part-time faculty member in philosophy) participating, Gary at my initiative. Unfortunately, I do not have a recording of the conversation at that meeting, at which, of course, absolutely nothing was resolved. Christine claimed she had been responsive in that the correspondence clarified her position, which she said was clear and consistent. The documents show this claim to be false.

      At one point I asked how she could justify the enormous disparity between her pay and that of some of the part-timers. Her answer was to underscore how hard she worked, her great responsibility, and how she could not sleep at night because of the worries her job entailed. To which Gary responded, How do you think a part-timer with a sick child, no medical insurance and little money feels at night, awake and worrying? I don't recall her answer, if any.

      At another point I criticized the matriarchy that runs the sciences (She took offense at that.), and asked about the non-democratic process by which she gained her position as dean. The job, she maintained, was so undesirable that they couldn't find anyone else to do it, claiming in effect that she got it by default. Gary laughed at the absurdity of that statement and said he'd take it for half the pay she gets.

      These were the high (or low) points of the conversation, as I recall. I will welcome any statement dean Kibel wishes to make, and will post it here on my website.

      Aside from the conflict with the dean, but related to it because it also involves the administrators' schemes to pay as little to the faculty as they can manage, is the practice of requiring Annual Faculty Reports. I thus include the following two items: The last Annual Faculty Report that I submitted, in November 1970; and a statement to the Physics Department on my objection to these reports, in December 1973.