Q & A with political science Lecturer Hennig

The Daily Bruin sat down for an interview with lecturer Robert
Hennig, member of the University Council ““ American
Federation of Teachers lecturers bargaining team. In November the
political science department gave Hennig a pink slip, shortly
before the completion of his sixth year at UCLA: the point at which
the university would be required to consider giving Hennig a
three-year contract. We asked Hennig about his future, the
university’s treatment of lecturers, and an impending
lecturers’ strike. “¢bull; “¢bull; “¢bull; Daily Bruin: After
you leave, who will teach your classes?

Robert Hennig: The department called me up and said that they
wouldn’t be hiring any more lecturers. And the reason for
that is simply a financial matter. All the classes that I teach are
not going to be taught, because there’s no one on the
tenure-tract faculty who has the ability to teach my
specialization, which is public law.

DB: What effect will the absence of your courses have on
political science students?

RH: Most political science departments are heavily dependent on
pre-law students. The courses I teach are all about courts and are
very popular with pre-law students. I think that if the department
were not going to offer these courses, there would be a huge outcry
from the students. UCLA has made about a dozen political science
hires in the past few years, but they have not hired a single
person in public law. I think that this is a mistake on the
department’s part. There’s a continuing need for public
law classes; there’s actually a larger need than I can meet
single-handedly. We’re going to go from not fully meeting the
need to not meeting it at all.

DB: What choices does the university have regarding the budget
crisis?

RH: There are really two paths the university can take. The
first is to get rid of all the lecturers and say, “OK,
tenure-tract faculty, you have to teach.” That seems to be
what Carnesale is suggesting and that’s a short-term
solution. A longer-term issue would involve the fact that lecturers
teach twice as many classes and make half as much money as
tenure-tract professors. Lecturers are one-fourth the cost per
class. So the other thinking is to hire a whole bunch of lecturers
and less tenure-tract faculty. And the other complication is the
huge influx of incoming students. In the next five years
you’re going to see a huge peak in students, and who is going
to teach these students?

DB: How are students affected by the university’s policy
toward lecturers?

RH: If you have a haphazard system of hiring your lecturers, to
the extent that they teach half of your classes, then lecturers
have a huge impact on an undergraduate education. If you
deliberately avoid giving really good teachers contracts, then you
have this constant turnover of lecturers. It creates chaos and does
a disservice to the students. The way the university treats
lecturers reflects the priority the university gives to the
undergraduate education. When the university treats lecturers
poorly ““ by refusing them job security, turning them over,
and not paying them well ““ it is saying that the
undergraduate education is not of value to the university. And
that’s essentially the way it is and has been for the last 20
to 30 years ever since the university began employing lecturers in
large numbers. Even the officers of university police get good
contracts, not to mention parity raises. Also, the administration
is paid extraordinarily well. They pay themselves well. Again,
it’s a question of priorities. The police department is a
really important thing, but the mission of a university should be
education.

DB: What are your chief grievances against the UC’s
bargaining approach?

RH: Bargaining with the UC is an “Alice In
Wonderland” experience. All the unions say the same thing;
the process is surreal. The reason why is because they don’t
have their internal act together. They argue among themselves. One
representative always has veto power, and the group is paralyzed.
They can’t give us an answer. There’s no back-and-forth
bargaining because the representatives are incapable of making
decisions among themselves. They’ve engaged in regressive
bargaining, and we’ve filed a formal grievance for that.
Also, it’s so decentralized; nobody has any power. The only
way to get an agreement is to ask for very little or to use
political pressure.

DB: Do you believe that this is a direct result of the budget
crisis?

RH: It comes at an unusual time, because after six years the
university has to give you job security. If you pass their
evaluation, you get a three-year contract … the implicit promise
being that you will continue to be employed by the university.
However, when they say that financial conditions are involved, I
take them at their word. I trust them. I don’t think that
they would lie; they’re just going through a budget crisis.
What makes this problematic is that UCLA seems to have a policy
against offering lecturers post-six-year contracts. This is very
unsettling. Many classes are only taught by lecturers, and the
lecturers are let go in their fourth or fifth year.

DB: Why are you choosing a new career in practicing law?

RH: Part of the problem is that I was informed of my dismissal
in late November, which is really late when it comes to academic
hiring. Most of the application deadlines were already past. I
didn’t have time to get together a resume. So, that was part
of it. But part of it is that I was looking for a change, which is
something I’ve been thinking about for several years. While I
enjoy teaching, I want to try something else. I’ve always
wanted to practice law … try some cases.

DB: What was the effect of the two day lecturers strike that
took place on five UC campuses?

RH: It resulted in the university growing defiant. They dug in
their heals. It was like they were saying, “If you’re
going to strike, then we will show you!” The University of
California is acting as if it’s accountable to itself alone.
It is not accountable to the regents, nor to the people. The people
helped build the university. One-fourth of its money comes from the
people. That money is supposed to go toward undergraduate
education. That money is specifically earmarked for education
““ not for research. The university takes funds and (uses) it
for other purposes.

DB: What can students do to reverse the UC’s policy toward
lecturers?

RH: Students have certain limitations, but they should take an
interest in the larger university. They can write elected officials
and demand a higher quality of education. The student government
has the power to take a stance on this.

DB: When and what kind of strike are the lecturers planning?

RH: Currently we’re still negotiating with other unions.
We’re deciding what exactly we want to do. But if we strike,
we will close the whole university.

DB: Thank you for your time Hennig. Interview conducted by Sarah
Jansen.