August 04, 2003

Patricians versus Plebeians: the Faculty Senate

Patricians versus plebeians; nobles versus commoners; touchables versus untouchables; the quality versus the riff-raff. Call the division what you will. It's my belief that the line dividing the tenurable from the untenurable is hardening.

In an article entitled Faculty Senates: The Last Bastion of Patrician Privilege, Christopher Cumo reports on the resistance of full-time faculty to the idea of sharing governance with part-time faculty -- even (or perhaps we should say especially?) where, as is the case at Santa Rosa Junior College, the 320 full-time faculty members are greatly outnumbered by 1100 part-time faculty members. What these full-timers fear, apparently, is that part-timers might vote for the an end to tenure.

"The anxiety over tenure seems ubiquitous at Drexel [University]," where, writes Cumo, Senate member and Associate Professor of Visual Studies Brian L. Wagner "fears the hordes of part-time faculty who, if seated on the Senate, might trample tenure underfoot." Similarly, Eldon D. Wedlock, Jr., Faculty Senate Chair between 1997 and 1999 and a professor of Law at the University of South Carolina, says that "faculty fear being overrun by 'the unwashed masses.'" And Paul H. Gates, Chairman of the Faculty Senate and associate professor of communications at Appalachian State University, fears that "part-time faculty, should they gain seats on the Senate, would vote their 'self-interest' rather than for policies best for the university." One wonders, Cumo adds, "how full-time faculty who fight to exclude adjuncts from the Senate are not acting in self-interest." One also wonders, I would add, who voted for the employment policies that resulted in so many part-timers on staff that the full-timers now view them as a threat -- and in whose interest were they voting? (or, if they didn't actually vote for or against such policies, then what on earth do they mean by "governance"?)

Steven Powell, Chair of the Faculty Senate and an associate professor of Performing Arts at Drexel University, admits that some full-time faculty hurl the epithet "riff-raff" at adjuncts. But "'no tenure-track faculty member,'" he asserts, "'would tolerate having an adjunct making decisions about the tenure process.'" Powell performs the role of a latter-day Pericles when he justifies the exclusion of adjunct faculty from the Senate on the grounds of citizenship: only “citizens” can participate in governance, Powell claims, not “visitors for a term or two.” This suggests an angle on adjunctification that I had yet to consider: the adjunct as metic. Though as I understand it, at least some of the metics were far better off.

Of course, Powell's justification for adjunct exclusion does have at least a surface plausibility: who would deny that "visitors for a term or two" should be ineligible to sit on the Faculty Senate? But are most part-time faculty at his institution really just "visiting" for a term or two? If so, I have to wonder what the Senate has been up to in the past decade or so. If the faculty composition at Drexel has reached the point where the full-time faculty are so outnumbered by "visitors" that they now fear for their own jobs, I should think the Faculty Senate might want to make it an urgent priority to reform this system.

Meanwhile, Joan Williamson, past President of the Faculty Senate and a clinical professor of Nursing at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, strikes a Victorian note with her belief that "adjuncts do not need their own representation on the Senate. They need only share their concerns with a senator who will voice them to the full Senate." Now, that sounds rather paternalistic -- or should I say maternalistic? Indeed, it sounds remarkably like James Mill's arguments against female suffrage -- women did not need the vote, he argued, because their interests would be voiced by their husbands. His son thought differently, though. Perhaps Williamson should take a peek at John Stuart Mill's Subjection of Women?

Also of interest, given our previous discussion of whether academic jobseekers resemble a Calvinist congregation, is the definition of "academic Calvinism" provided by Nora Bacon, Assistant Professor of English at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a member of the Faculty Senate: “'I think the full-time faculty like to think that they’re better, smarter, generally more worthy than the part-timers—sort of a Calvinist faith that their own privilege must be deserved, with the corollary that those without privilege must be undeserving.''” One proposal mentioned in the article is to base eligibility for the Senate on publications: "say, a book or four peer-reviewed articles in the last two years with the proviso that a senate admit all part-time faculty who satisfy these standards and exclude all full-time faculty who fall short." Though, as Cumo notes, "faculty senators who do not want the tally of books and articles to shatter their Calvinist hubris might do better to quietly admit part-time faculty."

As I've suggested many times at this weblog (and most recently here), I don't see any real hope for reform unless and until full-time tenured faculty start to view part-time faculty as members of the same profession rather than as outsiders to the profession. I don't know how representative are the full-time faculty cited in this article, but certainly Cumo's piece does not inspire optimism on this score.

Someone should do a sociological study of hierarchy and status maintenance in today's academy. Well, perhaps somebody already has? but if so, is the study up-to-date? It would be interesting to see something that takes into account the dramatic increase in part-time at the expense of full-time positions over the past decade, and the growing gap between the two tiers.


Stephen Karlson thinks I am envisioning a senate "in which all full-time, tenure-track faculty members are ex officio faculty senators." Not at all. What is in dispute at the institutions treated in Cumo's article is the eligibility of faculty (or, in the case the adjuncts, the lack of eligibility) to be voted into office.

Posted by Invisible Adjunct at August 4, 2003 11:00 AM

Another impressive posting.

Note that the colleges and universities cited in the article are, with few exceptions, unimpressive institutions. I think it's fair to speculate that at places such as these the resistance to adjunct representation involves to some extent a rather fragile vanity. I don't doubt that scholarly productivity, for instance, might well be more impressive among the adjuncts at such places than among tenure-track and tenured faculty. But what about better schools? It would be interesting to know attitudes and policies at places like Northwestern, Tufts, Boston University, and then at top-flight places, like the Ivies.

Posted by: Livia at August 4, 2003 12:25 PM

Re tenured faculty supporting non-tenure track faculty: Why should they? And by that I mean specifically, What's in it for them? If the only answer to the question is that it would be better for the non-tt/adjunct faculty members themselves, or that it would be better for the students, then I suspect the effort is doomed.

Posted by: Random Reader at August 4, 2003 12:54 PM

If tenured faculty are only concerned with their own immediate self-interest, then there's no reason why they should support non-tenured faculty. If, however, they are concerned with something broader than their own self-interest -- e.g., the kind of education that students receive, the quality of curricula, the departmental culture, the principle of academic freedom, the future of their profession -- then they should support non-tenure track faculty.

The fact that they don't support non-tenure track faculty suggests to me that they may have little more than their own self-interest in mind. But I would be happy to be proved wrong on this score.

Good point, Livia. While some of the more prestigious schools do rely on adjunct faculty to a much greater degree than many people might suppose, they've yet to face a situation where the full-timers are easily outnumbered by part-timers.

Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at August 4, 2003 01:45 PM

The arrogance evinced by these tin-pot "senators" is just further evidence that adjuncts need to vote with their feet and find jobs that pay a living wage. So full-time faculty want to control governance? Fine, let 'em. And let 'em do all the teaching, too.

What would full-time faculty do if their institutions were not *allowed* to hire adjuncts? If, say, it became policy that no one but full-time faculty could teach? Such a policy could easily be justified on budgetary grounds. Sure, it's cheaper to hire an adjunct than a full-time faculty member, but aren't adjuncts themselves an expense that could be eliminated by "making better use of existing resources"--the full-time faculty?

In business, we have to take on extra responsibilities all the time. Fewer bodies doesn't mean less work. In fact, it means the opposite--for those who are still here.

So, let the full-time faculty govern. And let them (finally) work for a living.

Posted by: Kevin Walzer at August 4, 2003 01:56 PM

What Livia said. About 20 years ago I had connections with a community college which was already adjunctified. I did not get an impression that the permanent faculty their had been selected for their superior abilities. More a combination of right-place-at-the-right-time, "works well with others', "knows which side his bread is buttered on", etc.

Those three factors probably figure in most hiring. I think that the drawbridge mentality is an enormous motive, especially in the lower-ranking places. People inside know that there are others outside who are just as good. This is close to the diametrical opposite of the Calvinist theory.

Posted by: zizka at August 4, 2003 04:49 PM

If Adjuncts are skeptical about tenure, and repealing it would lower tenured faculty income and job security, why would tenured faculty want Adjuncts in a position to wreak their will? I would think you would want to stress the importance of job security for all, and better wages for all, if you are really trying to develop a "Cross Class Alliance."

Given the McCarthyite leanings of the current Administration, shouldn't we all want a tenured faculty who can withstand governmental assault? It would be sad if Adjuncts, right wing college boards, curmudgeonly donors, and tight fisted aministrators all teamed up to fire the "tenured radicals," and anyone else they found expensive or objectionable to replace them and their positions with permanently perilous non-tenured positions. Servility would be the rule. No one would dare rock the boat.

Putting it differently, you draw such a vivid picture of the Adjunct's miserable condition, why would you wish it on anyone -- even the currently tenured?

Posted by: The Happy Tutor at August 4, 2003 10:41 PM

IA --

If you're looking for sociological studies of the professoriate try Bourdieu's Homo Academicus. (the English translation is unreadable -- suggest the French) Bourdieu was interested in the ancien regime, that is, the pre-68 French university, but there's plenty in there that's relevant to the Anglo Saxon academy today.

Posted by: che at August 4, 2003 11:01 PM

As a tenure-track faculty member at a small college free of any prestige where adjuncts make up nearly half of all faculty, I certainly can understand the collective frustration being vented here.

On the issue of faculty senates, though, you need to recognized a few points not mentioned here.

First, the act of bringing in adjuncts may not be simply a matter of convincing the tenured and tt people to agree. At least at my institution, the administration and the board of trustees would have to give their ok as well for such a dramatic change in governance. It would never happen where I would teach since the college president would violently oppose such a move.

As tt faculty see their status being continually undermined by administrators, especially at schools where institutions are pushing for renewable contracts to replace tenured positions, there is a sense that adjuncts are being used to weaken the already shaky position of the tenured crowd. This point might make some adjuncts cheer, but it makes building tenure track-adjunct alliances very hard.

Having a voice on the faculty senate, or even having a majority, might not mean any change would take place. Faculty senates can be completely toothless. It might be a great symbolic victory to have adjuncts represented, but you need more than symbolic victories to really improve your situation.

Based on my experiences, adjuncts best move would be to either unionize and/or vote with their feet. If all the adjuncts at my school walked off the job, the college would have to shut down or make major concessions.

Posted by: better left nameless at August 5, 2003 09:01 AM

"As tt faculty see their status being continually undermined by administrators, especially at schools where institutions are pushing for renewable contracts to replace tenured positions, there is a sense that adjuncts are being used to weaken the already shaky position of the tenured crowd. This point might make some adjuncts cheer, but it makes building tenure track-adjunct alliances very hard."

Okay, I think this is an important point. I do NOT wish adjunct status on anyone, nor do I cheer on as tenured position are replaced by adjunct contracts. One of the central themes of this blog is that adjunctification is not a good thing: not good for the adjuncts, obviously, but also not good for the students and not good for full-timers (who lose their bargaining power with the admin. when it is so easy to replace full-time with casual positions).

But I don't see how adjunct unionization would help this situation: how would it end the the conversion of full-time tenurable positions into part-time nontenurable positions? Faculty unionization would be a step, but I'm talking about a union that includes all faculty. The only real hope lies in the tenurable and nontenurable finding common ground to fight the ongoing casualization of faculty. But how is this possible if the tenured adopt a fortress mentality and view the adjuncts as the "unwashed masses" rather than as colleagues and allies?

Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at August 5, 2003 09:08 AM

"It would be sad if Adjuncts, right wing college boards, curmudgeonly donors, and tight fisted aministrators all teamed up to fire the 'tenured radicals,' and anyone else they found expensive or objectionable to replace them and their positions with permanently perilous non-tenured positions."

And of course this is not outside the realm of possiblity. But in the case of the schools treated in Cumo's article, though some of the tenured clearly beleive it to be the case, I have to wonder whether adjuncts really would eliminate tenure if given the power. I think it more likely they would try to vote themselves into a better deal than vote others out of good jobs.

In any case, what is happening at these schools -- where part-timers now outnumber full-timers -- is that tenure is being slowly but surely eliminated. And rather than address the problem and seek to end this indirect but powerful attack on tenure, the tenured cling tenaciously to their own privileges (privileges which may not outlast their own generation) and put up a wall between themselves and the untenured.

Sorry if this sounds cranky. But I have been talking for months on this blog about the need for the tenured (ie, those with some power and influence) to see the untenured as part of the same profession and to recognize the conversion of full-time into part-time positions as a serious erosion of tenure. It seems a bit much to put the blame/responsibility for this situation on adjuncts.

Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at August 5, 2003 10:18 AM

Did the system of tenure itself create what we know as the "adjunct?" I realize that many non-tenure-track schools use part time teachers, but it seems like the very nature of tenure, coupled with a tight job market, is creating this separate adjunct culture. I just can't forsee holding out hope that one can have one's cake (the dream of tenure) and eat it too (ample amount of teaching positions that pay a living wage). I guess what I'm trying to ask is why do so many underemployed adjuncts so viciously support the system of tenure? It's almost like holding out hope of winning the lottery and getting mad at the jackpot winners. Does anyone else find this strange?

Posted by: Cat at August 5, 2003 12:01 PM

IA speaks of a "need" for tenured faculty to align with non-tenured, in order to prevent further erosion of tenure. But that's primarily an erosion in the future, via the elimination of existing tenure slots, upon the retirement of the incumbent, with non-tenure slots. In most places, the administration is eliminating the tenured via attrition. Ergo, the incumbents are safe. What is their self-interest in organizing to help posterity (i.e., future tt faculty)? Not much, I'd say. In fact, as the tenured faculty look at the trends in the labor force in general, with increased use of part-time/temporary workers, they would have good reason to suspect that their days are numbered, and that they should devote their own efforts to preserving their own privileges--while expecting those privileges to die with them. That's what's happening everywhere else. There's no reason to think that the academy will be any different.

Posted by: Random Reader at August 5, 2003 12:41 PM

I just wonder what the academy will look like in twenty years. Will my children be taught by someone like I was--a bitter, low-paid person with little commitment to the institution where I was working? Will anyone in English studies still be doing research? If tenure dries up, as I suspect it will, and everyone is an adjunct, what will be the point of doing research? How many individuals working outside the academy because they desire to earn a living wage will still feel some obligation to their scholarly work, to advance knowledge?

Posted by: Kevin Walzer at August 5, 2003 12:45 PM

Kevin, my guess is that your view of academic institutions in the future is probably correct, for all but elite institutions. That's because the "consumers" (students & their parents) will pay for full-time tenured faculty w/research time, etc., at those institutions, because of the brand-name of the institutions. (Harvard can do what it wants, because so many people want the Harvard brand name, just as Hermes can charge whatever it wants for a Kelly handbag.)

At other places, the consumer doesn't care whether the faculty does research or not. Or, more precisely, the consumer doesn't care enough to pay for it. All other factors being equal, students & parents at State Ag & Tech U. wouldn't necessarily mind if the faculty had tenure, benefits, & time to do research. But when they have to pay more money for that, they aren't willing to do so. Since the supply of teachers now exceeds the demand, they don't have to & so they won't.

This may be short-sighted of the consumers. They may be cheating themselves/their children. But unless & until they are persuaded otherwise, nothing is likely to change unless the market changes. The tenured faculty & the administration are not the villains; it's the consumers, who won't buy what academia wants to sell them.

My father, a history professor, sent me off to college with this advice: "Remember, the primary goal of every institution is its own survival." Viewed from that perspective, contemporary academic institutions are only doing what they have to, to survive in a harsh market.

Posted by: Random Reader at August 5, 2003 01:32 PM

Random Reader asks, "Re tenured faculty supporting non-tenure track faculty: Why should they? And by that I mean specifically, What's in it for them?"

Well, if they do, non-tenure faculty will get better pay and working conditions. Since there are only so many resources to go around, tenured faculty will get worse pay and working conditions. But since most tenured faculty say they are egalitarians, this will make them better off.

I find the logic impeccable. Only a cynic could find fault with the argument.

Posted by: Roger Sweeny at August 5, 2003 03:18 PM

Norah Bacon should stop talking about Calvinism--she clearly knows nothing about it. The whole point of Calvinist soteriology is that salvation is undeserved--not a reward for any qualities we may have (That's why its called total depravity.)

Posted by: Bill Burns at August 11, 2003 05:57 PM

Hello (Again):

It seems that after erroneously accusing my company (The Adjunct Advocate, Inc.) of spamming you (thanks kindly for removing that delightful reference from your blog) and refusing to post a public apology, you feel entitled to use copyrighted materials from our Web site, as well.

The August 4th "article" which you lifted above appears in the July/August 2003 issue of The Adjunct Advocate magazine. It belongs to the Adjunct Advocate until November 30, 2003, at which point the copyright reverts back to Chris Cumo, the author.

In future, please ask permission before you take copyrighted materials from our Web site or our print publication. I can tell you that I have never, in 10 years, refused anyone permission. I have, however, many times asked politely for those who would like to share materials from the Adjunct Advocate or our Web page for proper identification of the source and author.

Invisibility is no excuse for copyright infringement, I'm afraid.

P.D. Lesko, Publisher
The Adjunct Advocate
P.O. Box 130117
Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0117

Posted by: P.D. Lesko at August 13, 2003 11:15 PM

Ms. Lesko,

In what sense do you believe the Invisible Adjunct has infringed on The Adjunct Advocate's copyright?

She has quoted, briefly and with attribution, from the article on the Advocate's web site and she has linked to the original article, such that there is no confusion about the source of the material. I am not an attorney, but what the Invisible Adjunct has done seems to me a clear instance of "fair use," which is perfectly legal.

Posted by: ogged at August 14, 2003 09:45 AM


I can confirm, as an attorney, that you are exactly right about "fair use." The statute governing fair use specifies that use "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." 17 U.S.C. s 107. Factors to be considered in determining whether a particular case is fair use include whether the use was for nonprofit purposes, the amount used, and the effect of the use on the market value of the copyrighted work.
IA's use of the article clearly falls under "criticism, comment [or] news reporting." IA makes no profit from the use, which was minimal, and if anything, the market value of Adjunct Advocate as a publication will increase as the result of being linked to by such a worthy blog as IA's.
In short, any lawsuit by Lesko would clearly be recognized as frivolous, entitling IA to recover from Lesko any attorney's fees expended.

Posted by: Adjunct to the IA, Esq. at August 14, 2003 10:23 AM

P.D. Lesko,

I did not "lift" the article from The Adjunct Advocate. I did not "take copyrighted materials" from your website.

I cited, quoted from, and linked to the article. I clearly stated the author's name and the title of the article (e.g., "In an article entitled "Faculty Senates: The Last Bastion of Patrician Privilege," Christopher Cumo reports on the resistance of full-time faculty..."), and I provided a hyperlink to the original source. Direct quotes from the article are enclosed in quotation marks.

No reasonable person could interpret this as a violation of fair use or an infringement of copyright.

Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at August 14, 2003 10:29 AM

The Invisible Adjunct has not quoted, she has reproduced (copied) fully half of the copyrighted article not just for her own use, but for the use of many (she hopes) others. Her goal is not merely to comment, but to promulgate and archive the materials.

The copyright law gives permission to quote, yes, but "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," S 107(3), must be reasonable in relation to the purpose of the copying.

I don't find the public reproduction of over half of the article without our express permission reasonable, neither would The Chronicle of Higher Education or any other newspaper or magazine.

Furthermore, attribution of the author and title are a good start. The name of the original source of the publication, the date of publication are also a part of correct attribution. I asked her to do this, and she did not.

As I wrote in my earlier post, in a decade I have never refused anyone permission to reprint or reproduce the work published in the Adjunct Advocate or which appears on our Web page, providing there is the attribution we request.

To protect our interests and those of our writers, we have a clear statement on every page of our Web site that materials may not be reproduced without our permission. Copyright law gives publishers the legal right to choose who will make public use of our copyrighted materials and how those materials will be presented.

Does she really need to reproduce half of the article to comment on it, or is she using our materials for her own convenience, because she didn't do the research or interview the quoted sources? The latter is called reprinting, and our writer deserves payment for that. This is a public Web page, not a newspaper, term paper or a scholarly book.

She reproduced the majority of a copyrighted article which she didn't write, without permission. She is using it publically and intends to archive it, which we do, as well. We sell reprints of cover stories, and pay the writer for each reprint sold.

Authors and copyright holders deserve every opportunity to benefit from their work and control how, when and if it is reproduced publically.

P.D. Lesko, Publisher
The Adjunct Advocate

Posted by: P.D. Lesko at August 14, 2003 01:02 PM

Ms. Lesko,

You say three times that the Invisible Adjunct has "reproduced" "half" of Mr. Cumo's article. Simple math shows this claim to be false. Mr. Cumo's article contains just over 2000 words. The Invisible Adjunct has, by my count, here quoted (in quotation marks, with no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the source of the quotations), 219 words of Mr. Cumo's article. That's close to 11%, not the 50% you allege.

You also claim that you have asked for "the original source of the publication" and "the date of publication" to be mentioned. You certainly did not ask for that in your first comment to this post. If you have done so in a private communication, then I'm sure IA can verify that, and my apologies.

Also keep in mind that a hyperlink, insofar as it leads to the article itself, contains the very information you ask be mentioned.

Finally, a less legalistic note on blogging and linking: bloggers link to articles in order to draw attention to them. I find it quite odd that you would object so vigorously to a link from a site that is much read by people interested in precisely the issues your magazine addresses. Why are you driving away your target audience?

Posted by: ogged at August 14, 2003 02:52 PM


The answer to your question is simple: The article, in its entirety, belongs to my company. We decide who may use it, and who may not. IA does not have our permission to reproduce the material in any form. It is clear from the copyright notice she ignored while copying and pasting the materials that nothing on our site or in our publication may be reproduced without our permission.

Publishers exercise their rights, and vigorously pursue those who break the rules because the right to decide who may use published materials protects us from people (both good itentioned and bad) who seek to take what we pay to produce and use it for their own purposes.

Finally, what this woman has in quotes are the words of the sources whom Chris Cumo interviewed; the bulk of her unquoted material comes from the article, as well. She has lifted well over half of the piece, and could have avoided the mess by asking permission to use our materials.

P.D. Lesko, Publisher
The Adjunct Advocate

Posted by: P.D. Lesko at August 16, 2003 10:56 AM

P.D. Lesko,

There is no "mess" here, though apparently you are determined to create one. I don't know what you mean by "vigorously pursue," but if you are planning to embark on a campaign of harrassment and intimidation, please rethink the matter and revise your plans.

To repeat what I have already said twice (once in a comment here, once in an email): I have not "copied" or "reproduced" any of your copyrighted material. I have cited, quoted from, and linked to the item in question. I have clearly stated the author's name and the title of the item, and I have provided a hyperlink that takes the reader directly to the source. All direct quotes are in quotation marks. There is absolutely no confusion about attribution.

Your accusation that I have "reproduced (copied) fully half of the copyrighted article" is completely unfounded. Anyone who compares my blog entry to the item from which I quote can immediately see the absurdity of your charge. Your latest charge, namely, that "the bulk of [my] unquoted material comes from the article, as well" is equally unfounded. I have quoted briefly and with full attribution in order to comment on one of the main themes of Cumo's article (the resistance of full-time faculty to sharing governance with part-time faculty), in order to ask my own questions about the meaning of this resistance, and in order to place this faculty resistance within the context of some of the broader themes (relations between adjunct and tenurable faculty; status and hierarchy in the academy) that are under frequent discussion at this weblog.

Once again, no reasonable person could interpret this as a violation of fair use or an infringement on your copyright.

Finally, when you post a comment on someone's personal weblog, you do so as a guest. The weblogger is under no obligation -- moral, legal or otherwise -- to play host to anyone else's comments (much less threats and accusations). Though I try to foster free and open exchange, I do ask readers to keep things reasonably civil (my posting policies can be found here). More specifically, I would ask that you refrain from referring to me as "this woman."

Posted by: Invisible Adjunct at August 17, 2003 12:48 PM

wow youll waste time

Posted by: sincle456 at September 12, 2003 10:48 AM

The patrians and plebeians are some of the most contriversal inequalities of the ancient society. And you guys do waste a lot of time!


Posted by: Lauren "Da Bomb" Mulli at September 12, 2003 10:51 AM

Wow you guys waste time...

Posted by: Fo' Sincle My Nincle at September 12, 2003 10:54 AM

The above three messages are from two people in my high school Latin class. We are doing a project on the Roman republic. They found your site, thought it would be funny to flame you for being "nerds", and then bragged about it to the rest of us. I apologize on behalf of those two; such juvenile behavior makes me feel ashamed to share a class with them.

Posted by: Dante at September 12, 2003 11:10 AM