Yesterday in Senate, the Provost made an argument for abolishing the TCPL cap. (The TCPL cap constrains the number of teaching professors, clinical and professional faculty and lecturers to a percentage of the number of tenure-line faculty).
The Provost’s argument failed to mention an important option that would allow us to stand with him in advocating against the cap. We’ll gladly say goodbye to the TCPL cap—when it is replaced by a better policy that protects the teacher-scholar model.
Let’s be clear. The choice before us is not between the TCPL cap and no cap at all. There is a third option: a better policy that protects the teacher-scholar model and reduces Miami’s reliance on precarious non-tenure-track faculty.
Why has the administration fast-tracked the Faculty Composition Committee’s recommendation to get rid of the cap on TCPL, but ignored its other important recommendations, especially the one that says we should hire temporary faculty only for temporary needs?
The Provost’s main points are quoted in the left-hand column. Our analysis is on the right.
| Provost says that failure to remove university level cap on TCPL will… | Fact check |
| Cause unintended consequences in the form of increased reliance on VAPs/adjuncts. | True. A real concern, and a major problem with the current cap. It’s the reason we should not simply abolish the cap, but replace it with a policy that protects the teacher-scholar model better. We should also make sure to pass a policy that says that temporary faculty should only be hired for temporary needs. Why has the administration, in its rush to abolish the TCPL cap, ignored this important recommendation from the Faculty Composition Committee? |
| Will not by itself increase T/TT faculty lines. Only revenue or more effective use of curricular offerings can do that. | True. But… Who would argue that keeping the cap will “by itself” increase T/TT lines? We are of course aware that the cap hasn’t protected T/TT lines in the past. We want a better policy than the cap, one that does protect tenure lines. And is it true that “only revenue” can increase tenure lines? Of course not, because budget allocations are made by humans. Budgets reflect priorities, not only financial constraints. In recent years, Miami’s revenues have been excellent, and we’ve seen a significant rise in highly paid administrators (not to mention the $27 million that goes to fill the intercollegiate athletics shortfall) alongside a decline in T/TT (in numbers and, more starkly, as a percentage of overall faculty). |
| Is financially constraining. | True. But see comments on budget priorities above. |
| Inappropriately devalues permanent TCPL faculty. | False. The implication is that constraining non-tenure-track numbers means that “we don’t like TCPL.” Nonsense. Having more TCPL does not mean Miami somehow loves TCPL more. It just means Miami has more TCPL. We faculty value TCPL enormously.When the administration claims that valuing TCPL means hiring more of them, we need to recall that non-tenure-track faculty like TCPL are more exploited than tenure-line faculty. Here’s the truth: the reason the administration wants to expand TCPL without protecting tenure-line numbers isn’t that Miami loves TCPL—it’s that TCPL are paid less than tenure-line faculty. AAUP advocates not for more TCPL, but for improving rights and working conditions for the ones we already have. That’s part of our overall goal to preserve and protect Miami’s educational mission and teacher-scholar model. |
The TCPL cap, while flawed, is Senate and faculty’s only policy leverage protecting the teacher-scholar model. We should not give it up without exchanging it for something better.
Leave a Reply