A panel on whether or not Washington University should operate like a business prompted conversation on the University’s branding and its treatment of employees, including adjunct faculty and service workers.

The panel, hosted by fraternity Alpha Delta Phi, aimed to compare and contrast the University’s operating procedures with those of a corporation. Speakers included Provost Holden Thorp, Assistant Dean Sean McWilliams, associate professor Clarissa Hayward, adjunct professor Erik Strobl and senior Danielle Blocker.

Skyler Kessler | Student Life

Adjunct English professor and graduate student Erik Strobl, at far left, speaks about some of the socioeconomic issues that adjunct professors at Wash. U. and across the country face. The Wash. U. inc. panel was sponsored by the fraternity Alpha Delta Phi.

The panelists debated issues ranging from Washington University’s image concerns to the school’s community obligations. Other topics included socioeconomic diversity, adjunct professor unionization and priorities for future University spending.

Early discussion centered around the results of over 300 responses to an Alpha Delta Phi survey that accompanied the panel, which found that 74 percent of respondents thought Washington University shouldn’t be operated as a business. Thorp was one of the first speakers to weigh in, stating that despite the views of the remaining respondents, the University was obligated not to act like a business.

Strobl, an adjunct professor and graduate student at Washington University, criticized the notion that students should view college as a transaction and themselves as customers.

“A customer mentality presumes the customer is always right, and that’s actually the opposite of an education…I’m not here for customer service, as funny as it sounds, but to change people’s lives, to inoculate them against the bulls— they hear every day,” Strobl said.

Thorp decided to directly address nationally relevant discussion of the University’s reliance on adjunct professors, who have been recently been protesting and organizing against low wages.

“One thing that’s positive about [the adjunct union’s publicity]—it does raise a number of questions about the University’s mission. I believe that the collective bargaining agreement will proceed to a contract that will improve the situation for contingent faculty,” Thorp said.

McWilliams also addressed the business-like nature of the adjunct professor model.

“You don’t see any university presidents turning into billionaires, but we do rely on a lot of really talented labor. Contingent staff generate a ton of value and aren’t compensated properly,” McWilliams said.

Hayward, a tenured professor, argued that the University’s adjunct model simply constituted bad policy.

“When Professor Strobl talks about his working conditions, how many of you think ‘I want to go do that, I want to go get a Ph.D.’?” Hayward asked the audience.

Only one student in the crowd raised a hand.

“Even if you think universities should be run as a business, this isn’t good business practice. Surely our business mission includes research, and how are we going to discourage talented people from pursuing this line of work?” Hayward added.

But Thorp said that University administrators are not solely responsible for the current adjunct model.

“The tenure track faculty of the departments are going to have to work with us to recalibrate the Ph.D. the way we need to. There’s going to be a lot of soul searching going on—and not just with the administration. This is a community conversation that needs to happen,” Thorp said.

Hayward spoke to the importance of the University fulfilling its responsibility to the community.

“The name of the university is Washington University in St. Louis, and we don’t live up to the ‘in’ very well. We’re perceived as the castle on the hill, and I think that we can start letting St. Louis in, or else we’re reproducing injustice,” Hayward said.

Thorp later responded to a question about the University uniquely branding itself through constructing a beautiful campus, saying that although having attractive facilities was important, the University was not striving to develop a brand.

“Learning communities don’t have brands; we’re here to do work that stands on its own,” Thorp said.

Hayward was quick to tie the discussion of university branding back to the labor practices.

“I agree that having a beautiful living space and good food and nice buildings is important, but there are workers who provide those nice things for us, and in addition to talking about contingent faculty I think we need to open up our vision of our community to them as well,” Hayward said.

Junior Nina Stoller wished panelists had pushed further on the University using physical beauty as a marketing tactic.

“I wish the panel had spoken more on housing, which I think is the next frontier, because we create buildings that isolate the community. We’re selling dorms and the residential experience, which is intimately tied to whether or not Wash. U. is a business,” Stoller said.

Junior Sarah Turecamo, however, was happy with the different views presented.

“I definitely chose Wash. U. for its great reputation, the pretty campus, the Tempur-Pedic beds—and now I dislike all those reasons. These sorts of events are so important in bringing visibility to these issues—tonight, we emphasized the importance of having an intellectual community and not just the brand of Wash. U.,” Turecamo said.