We don't do that. I am a Professor and there is a distinction.

I don't delete comments for point of view. All points of view are welcome. I delete those that violate the comment rules and engage in insults, name-calling, profanity, pandering of false information, chattering with an intent to hijack or dominate the discussion or are off topic.

Instructor is the lowest of the four fulltime faculty ranks, usually for an ABD (all but diss.).  Next up the food chain are assistant professors, also untenured.  Then with tenure are associate professors.  And those deserving -- defined quite differently in varying departments, schools, colleges, universities, etc. -- of the top rank reach full professor.

That the term "professor" is widely used for any teacher -- lecturer or faculty -- at campuses does not mean the same, by any means.  Actually, it masks for too many students and parents that they increasingly are paying for non-faculty as teachers these days.  Many are fine teachers, but it's sad to see what happens when students need to find fulltime faculty for appeals, as advisors, even as writers of reference letters for admission to graduate schools.    

In my own experience within academe, the whole matter of ranking terminology has been much more definitive and restrictive than it appears to be at U of C.

Although students generally tend to call everybody "(P)professor", institutions usually reserve that official designation for tenured personnel and full-time tenure track personnel.

The distinction is not insignificant, because the title is usually very HARD-EARNED.

It is assumed that tenured, or tenure-track "(P)professors" have spent, or will spend, typically six years: TEACHING full-time, while also pursuing independent RESEARCH and publication, along with SERVICE; in the form of various committee work within the institution, and external contributions to the profession at large.

Given that I have never seen an exception to this rule, I had assumed that Obama had, in fact, paid those dues. It is disappointing to see that he has not.

Lynn Sweet's article:

But then, lots of the attacks back and forth strike me as silly at the moment -- I don't give a rat's behind about what Clinton said about her trip to Bosnia, either, or about her tax returns. Next, one of them will sigh at a debate or wear too many earth tones.

Seems to me like some people on the internets would find some sort of meaningful electoral symbolism in it at this point if either candidate stubbed his or her big toe. "Clinton devalues own toe; is the left next?", or "Obama wounded against less-clumsy McCain!". Who knows.

Proffessor? Oh Really?

He lists several problems with the announcement;
Let me mention two.
1) Why is the announcement unsigned? A definitive statement on Obama's position should come from the Provost's office.

I think that's a good point.

2) The memo declares that Obama was offered a full-time tenured position.
Oh really??? There are rules about these things. No one is offered the position of Professor without applying for it. When did Obama do so?

Frankly I'm not a favorite of your
petty adnauseum judgements and I come here to get away from Huffpo's and DKs robots.

Help your candidate by being fair.

If it was his mistake, or the UC's then
its clarified, but don't try to make something up out of thin air.
It doesn't help your candidate at all.

But even putting aside UC's statement, which really should settle the matter, my experience is that not all adjuncts are viewed equally within a law school.  

One broad category of adjuncts are simply practicing lawyers who are asked to teach a course or two because it fills a particular need/demand in the course offerings.  Most of those folks are truly "adjuncts" in that they generally wouldn't be considered for a tenure track position even if they begged; and therefore they shouldn't refer to themselves as "professors" outside the classroom.

A different group of adjuncts -- what UofC apparently gives the title "Senior Lecturer" -- are folks who the law school would absolutely love to have as full time professors but who, because of outside careers, either can't or won't accept a full time faculty position.  Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook (both highly regarded 7th Circuit judges) are in this category at UofC and they are viewed as high profile and prestigious faculty members there.  At my law old school, UofPa, David Rudovsky is viewed similarly -- he's taught evidence and criminal procedure there for years and years, but maintains a full time public interest law practice -- but they'd give him a full professorship in a heartbeat if he wanted it.  All these folks can fairly call themselves "law professors" in general discussion (though not on their CV's) because it's not really implying to the public a level of accomplishment or prestige that they don't have within their law schools.  The rest of the faculty views them as being of that caliber.

I think Obama is clearly in the second category, primarily for two reasons:  (1) he taught core curriculum courses -- like consititutional law -- at this topflight law school for over a decade (this is not something you typically let a mere "adjunct" do); and (2) in addition to the specific reference in UofC's statement that they offered him a tenure track position, I have read interviews/posts by at least two tenured UofC law professors who said the school actively courted Obama on multiple occasions to join the faculty as a full time professor.  And frankly that's not surprising given that he was viewed as an equal by other faculty members; was consistently rated as one of the very best teachers by the students; and he had an academic pedigree that would "qualify" him for a tenure track professorship.