Could you might address some of the points raised in the article? They seem to be at odds with what you wrote.<p>For example, you wrote &quot;adjunct professor is supposed to be a fun side gig&quot;, while the article suggests that these position were originally for &#x27;“the housewives of higher education” (eg, the wife of a man that the university wanted to recruit), or for female instructors where the university did not allow female professors. These were low status positions, quite different from the &quot;fun side gig&quot; you says it was meant for.<p>You point to Northwestern&#x27;s law school as if it were the appropriate model for how adjunct teaching should be, and comment that many if not most made millions per year. However, the article says &quot;31 percent of part-time faculty are living near or below the federal poverty line&quot;. What percentage of the 250+ adjunct professors in Northwestern&#x27;s law school department live at or near the federal poverty line? Why you think your experience at a graduate program Northwestern can be generalized to undergraduate teaching and is applicable to most other schools in the US?<p>You write &#x27;But these adjuncts are also taking advantage of themselves willingly.&#x27; The article also addresses that point rather extensively, starting with &quot;But apart from feeling sorry for the underpaid faculty, why should we care that college professors have the same job conditions as day laborers, fast-food workers, cashiers, taxi drivers, or home-care aides? They did, after all, choose to pursue a career in higher ed.&quot; and ending some eight paragraphs later.<p>Moreover, they are not all &quot;willingly&quot; doing so. Many are trying to unionize, but &#x27;While some schools like Georgetown have accepted unions without too much fuss, others have adopted the tactics long used by anti-labor businesses: falsely accusing labor officials of earning exorbitant salaries, hiring law firms that specialize in union busting, and firing those involved in the campaign.&#x27; Instead, they are &quot;willing&quot; to stay for the short term, because in the long term they help themselves, others like them, the students they teach, and the humanist values that a college is suppose to embrace. (All points that the article touches on.)<p>These differences between your comment and the article suggest that your understanding of the adjunct teaching issue is not well aligned with what most people mean when they talk about this topic.