How the Faculty came to have 9-month Appointments: A Just-So Story

By Kate Bjork, Professor of History & Global Studies

December 3, 2014

As a historian friend of mine likes to say, “Everything important has a history.” Recently, for reasons which may seem obscure to students, the length of the contract term that defines a faculty member’s relationship to the University—9 months or 12 months—has become the subject of discussion among faculty and administrators and the focus of proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook—not to shorten the contract length, as the headline on a recent Oracle article erroneously put it, but to lengthen contract terms to 12 months for all faculty.

As Provost Eric Jensen explained in the November 26 Hamline Oracle article by Meghan O’Brien, most Hamline faculty receive their salary in twelve monthly payments spread out over the course of the year. This has not always been the case, but we’ll save explanation of how things used to be for the historical part, below. For now it’s just important to know that even though faculty pay is spread out over 12 months, a 9-month appointment means that the pay is for 9 months of a faculty member’s work (defined in the current Handbook as “teaching and service for nine (9) months a year.”)

Since 2011, as the Provost also noted, some professors have received appointment letters that “made explicit that the period of employment was for one year.”  The problem with these new letters of appointment is that they are in contradiction with the terms of employment laid out in the Handbook. The Handbook, which is the contractually binding document for defining faculty-University relationships, continues to provide for 9-month terms of employment, not a full year. The appointment letters that faculty have received do not have the authority to reorder contract terms without a change to the Handbook. Hence, the administration’s felt need to change the language of the Handbook to conform to the terms of employment “laid out . . . to reflect the ongoing relationship between the faculty and the university,” in Provost Jensen’s words.

So, besides the pay—although this is no small issue–what is the difference between a 9-month appointment and a 12-month appointment for a Hamline University faculty member?  And if, as the Provost has been assuring faculty who are worried about this, protections for the benefits faculty derive from their existing 9-month appointments can be safeguarded by adding language to modify a new 12-month contract term, what is the problem with going to the new, longer contract term?  Finally, should this question make any difference to the rest of the Hamline community?  My answer is that the proposed 12-month contract term does pose problems; and yes, the proposed change would erode the control that faculty currently enjoy over directing our professional lives; further, the shift is likely to have an impact on students’ experience at Hamline in the future—and not in a good way.  Here’s where some history is useful to place the issue in a larger context.  (History is always valuable for providing context and perspective on the pressing questions of the day.)

Like the academic year itself, 9-month faculty appointments have their origins in the country’s agrarian past.  In Hamline’s early years, the regional economy that both nurtured and was served by the University was largely agricultural.  As a matter of fact, in the 19th century, Hamline occasionally accepted payment of tuition in hay or livestock.  In spite of the changes in our economy, our academic calendar year continues to reflect the rhythms of that agricultural past. One of its legacies is the 9-month appointment for faculty, which is still standard throughout the United States.

As Professor Emeritus of Philosophy Duane Cady recently told me, when he began teaching at Gustavus Adolphus College in 1971, he would have to set aside some money from each of the 9 paychecks he received during the academic year in order “to save enough to carry us over the summer.”

Similarly, at Hamline, throughout the 1970s, some faculty still received all of their 9 months of pay during the 9 months they earned it. However, for the kinds of reasons the Provost alluded to in last week’s article—accounting efficiency and standardization of practice—increasingly Hamline, like other colleges and universities where faculty have 9-month appointments, started holding back some of the money professors had earned during the months of their contracts and paying them in regular increments throughout the year. This is where the “set aside two extra months of pay,” comes from that the Provost mentioned. (He refers to two rather than to three months of pay because the fiscal year ends in June; this adds another complication we do not have time to explore here.)  The important point is the one Professor Cady emphasized to me: “in those days it was very clear that the contract period was nine months and that faculty had no institutional obligations during the summer, no matter which pay choice they made.”

The idea that faculty are on 9-month appointments can be confusing, even to faculty.  Part of the reason for this is that almost all faculty do some work in their capacities as Hamline professors over the summer, even though they are not paid for it.  In fact, most of us do quite a lot of work over the summer. This is a time when many of us have the freedom to concentrate on our research—whether that is in a lab, at an archaeological field site, or in an archive somewhere.  Professors also do work that is directly related to teaching: revising courses, catching up on new research that is relevant to our teaching, attending conferences and faculty development seminars.  Many faculty also choose to teach in the summer. Because summer teaching is not currently covered by their 9-month appointments, they get paid separately for teaching courses in summer session. The important point is that under the current 9-month contracts faculty are obligated to Hamline University for 9 months of the year and are paid for 9 months of work.  Under a 12-month contract, faculty would be obligated to Hamline University for 12 months of the year and still would be paid only for 9 months of work.

The comprehensiveness of the contract period is also an issue that has significance for Hamline faculty who want to enter into working relationships with other academic and research institutions during the summer. Faculty who apply for grants that include “summer salary” for research and/or teaching or who seek to establish relationships with other universities or think-tanks may need to satisfy those other institutions that they are not under conflicting contractual obligations. While this is straightforward with a 9-month appointment, it becomes more complicated if the faculty member is on an appointment to Hamline throughout the year, even when he or she may not be physically present on campus.

Another concern faculty have about going to year-round appointments is that it will place Hamline at a competitive disadvantage when trying to recruit new faculty colleagues. Given the choice between a 9-month appointment and a 12-month appointment at a 9-month rate of pay, it may prove challenging for Hamline to compete to attract outstanding faculty to come here if they have the prospect of more desirable contract terms somewhere else.

Hamline faculty work hard throughout the year. We are dedicated to the mission and goals of the University and especially committed to providing the best educational experiences we can for students. As members of a “learned profession,” in the words of the American Association of University Professors, we subscribe to the idea that we can do our best work and provide the best education for students when we are as much in control over our own time as possible.  The preservation of faculty discretion over how to use the summer period for our own professional development, teaching, research or other forms of service to the University is best left up to the faculty, as it has been in the past. This is why a change to a 12-month contract term for faculty is inimical to the principle of faculty autonomy and is not in the best interests of the larger Hamline community we serve.