Some IUPUI adjunct instructors to receive 3-percent raises

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A coalition representing part-time instructors in the School of Liberal Arts at IUPUI announced Tuesday that those instructors will receive a 3-percent raise at the start of the spring semester in January, giving their raises parity with those of their full-time counterparts at Indiana University.

The pay increases do not apply to hundreds of other part-time instructors at IUPUI in other schools. The School of Liberal Arts has 209 adjunct professors out of a total of 1,032 that work at IUPUI.

The coalition conducted public demonstrations Sept. 28 and Nov. 2 after Indiana University President Michael McRobbie announced in September that full-time IU professors would receive pay raises averaging 3 percent effective Nov. 1. The announcement angered part-timers, who did not receive the raise.

For a three-credit course, minimum pay for part-time, or adjunct, liberal arts professors will increase to between $2,325 and $2,550 depending on their educational degrees.

The part-timers also will receive an additional $105 to pay parking costs and will be able to purchase their own parking passes as needed.

“We are encouraged and pleased with the changes happening within the School of Liberal Arts and hope to see similar gains for adjuncts across campus,” said Tracy Donhardt, president of the Associate Faculty Coalition, in a prepared statement.

The 120-member coalition formed a year ago to push for improvements in pay and working conditions within the School of Liberal Arts. It since has expanded to represent all part-time instructors at IUPUI.

About a quarter of IUPUI's instructors are part-timers.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!