There’s been quite a bit of discussion* about Jason Brennan’s and Phil Magness’s excellent paper on the alleged exploitation of adjunct faculty.

Brennan and Magness note that “Many news sources, magazines, and activists claim that adjuncts are exploited and [therefore] should receive better pay and treatment” and go on to observe that “any attempt to provide a significantly better deal faces unpleasant constraints and trade-offs.” This observation has led to some rather rabid responses. (And photoshopped pictures of Phil dressed as Batman’s Robin, images of which cannot be unseen.) This puzzles me, for two reasons. First, Brennan’s and Magness’s point is utterly reasonable. Second, a standard response in some quarters to the claim that someone is exploited through her being paid to perform a certain job or sell a certain good is not to say that she should be paid more, but to claim that she should not be paid at all. So if adjuncts are exploited, maybe we should protect them from themselves and prohibit them from being paid.

I must stress that I don’t think that we should prohibit adjuncts from being paid. (I’ll say that again: I actually don’t think that we should prohibit adjuncts from being paid.) But I’m puzzled as to why when it comes to the alleged exploitation of adjuncts the response is that they should be paid more, but when the debate focuses on the alleged exploitation of (e.g.) kidney sellers a standard view is that they should not be paid at all.

This puzzlement increases when I see the similarities between the two debates. It’s often held that starting academics are forced by their economic situation into teaching as adjuncts; it’s also often held that kidney sellers are forced into selling their organs by their poverty.** With this latter claim in hand the usual response is to hold that to rescue would-be kidney sellers from the temptation of making a quick buck people shouldn’t be paid for their kidneys. So why not “protect” adjuncts in the same way?

Of course, such a policy would result in far fewer classes being taught. But why should this concern us? After all, it’s apparently fine to have fewer kidneys available as a result of banning paying for kidneys. Moreover, the current dearth of kidneys actually results in something far worse than would a reduction in the number of (e.g.) English Lit. classes. Few kidneys means more people die. Fewer English Lit. classes just means that fewer people unwillingly read Moby Dick.

Now, you might say that selling a kidney is not like teaching English Lit. That’s obviously true. Selling a kidney is far more risky and burdensome than teaching English Lit. But that strikes me as being a reason to think that kidney sellers have a better claim on being paid than do adjunct instructors of English.

I’ll stress—again!—that I don’t think that we should prevent adjuncts being paid for the work that they do. (Although universities might be ethically required to terminate some of their adjunct instructors, for reasons outlined here.) But if we should pay adjuncts, why shouldn’t we also pay kidney donors? And if we shouldn’t pay kidney donors so that we prevent them from being “exploited”, or being “forced” to sell their organs, shouldn’t we “protect” adjuncts in precisely the same way?

*Well, a little bit of discussion and a lot of howling, wailing, and gnashing of teeth…

** For the record, I don’t think that these claims are true at all; see Chapter 3 of my Stakes and Kidneys.