Over at Reassigned Time, “Dr. Crazy” offers a remarkably sane post on what tenure means to her:
Ultimately, this is the allure of tenure for me, and it’s what I think is most positive about the way I see tenure working at my institution. This is not to say that the tenure process at some institutions isn’t screwed up, or that even at my own institution that the tenure process plays out this way for all people. Tenure can mean that people check out entirely, or it can mean that people spread their poisonous negativity around because they no longer fear retribution or negative personal consequences. Tenure can mean that a university is filled with dead wood faculty who no longer give a shit about their own professional lives or about the university. Sure, all of that is true. But ultimately I believe in the tenure process because I see tenured colleagues who have not checked out, who are deeply invested not only in their own professional achievements but in our university and the surrounding community, and who do a lot of hard and often invisible work to continue to make our university better. It’s tenured faculty members at my university who’ve fought for partner benefits, who’ve fought for benefits for adjuncts, who’ve fought for greater transparency in the tenure process. It’s tenured faculty who make sure that things other than the bottom line go into administrative decision-making.
Would faculty have a similar investment if they were all on multiyear contracts that stipulated provisions for “academic freedom”? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. Would unionization provide the same sort of protections that tenure provides? Perhaps, but a) laws in my state stipulate that the state doesn’t have to negotiate with unions, so that certainly wouldn’t work here and b) it also wouldn’t provide the inspiration that tenure can provide to give back to the institution.
You should, of course, go read the whole thing. It’s always refreshing to hear “the perspective of somebody who’s nearing the end of the process and who doesn’t feel brutalized by it.” Best of luck to her.
The 1950s US polio epidemic was caused by Dr. Spock’s baby book. Creating axenic children precipitated every kid of medical and psychological woe in proximate and distal life – as it still does. Evolution created survivable humans. Stick a lambskin over a small waterbed at ~90 F, add a ticking clock. Peripheral containment. Hugs.
Let the kid roll in dirt and bloody other kids’ noses. You can’t go wrong with a civil servant.
The 1950s US polio epidemic was caused by Dr. Spock’s baby book. Creating axenic children precipitated every kid of medical and psychological woe in proximate and distal life – as it still does. Evolution created survivable humans. Stick a lambskin over a small waterbed at ~90 F, add a ticking clock. Peripheral containment. Hugs.
Let the kid roll in dirt and bloody other kids’ noses. You can’t go wrong with a civil servant.
The argument appears to be rather thin: “It’s tenured faculty members at my university who’ve fought for partner benefits, who’ve fought for benefits for adjuncts, who’ve fought for greater transparency in the tenure process. It’s tenured faculty who make sure that things other than the bottom line go into administrative decision-making.”
None of these have anything to do with education. One could make the same weak arguments for any other occupation. It would be better if academia would explain why it is that academics should have tenure but, for example, machinists do not.
The whole concept of academics determining tenure is a little hard to grok. I guess bus drivers should decide which bus drivers have employment for life? Or does this apply only if your brain case is above a certain size? Should doctors decide which doctors get guaranteed employment forever? What about doctors that begin making mistakes?
Another profession in the US that gets lifetime employment; certain judgeships. The reason for doing this is so that they are immune to bias when making judgements. I don’t see how this would relate to academia, except for those who teach.
Other than that, one finds the equivalent of “lifetime employment” among the idle rich, so long as they don’t put too many eggs in one basket and don’t spend too much money.
Ok, pardon the blather (I’m old), but I need to summarize my experience. I have a physics background (BS, MS, PhD), and even an MS in meteorology. I’ve taught in a private school (math, physics, and physical science, 8th – 12th). I’ve worked in the much-maligned Private Sector (supposedly a slave to the Bottom Line), and now…Xanadu…a tenured position at a university. I have to tell you that in many ways the systems are not all that different. Both are performance based – but w/ tenure, they say, “Ok, you can let up now.” It becomes a fcn of someone’s personal initiative and drive. Yes, I still pursue funding – so I can fund grad students (teaching is the best part of being in a university; I wish more of my academic brethren felt that way). And PLEASE don’t tell me that classroom performance is vital for being awarded tenure…poor performance is an excuse for denial…high performance doesn’t amount to much…indeed it may prove to be a detriment. Anyway, the systems are much alike. Take away all the glosses that accompany academia, and perhaps the other guys are simply more honest.
Let the excoriation begin…
Honestly, I think the only reason for retaining tenure is that it is there now, and so unless all schools do away with it at the same time, the ones which do will put themselves at a disadvantage in terms of faculty recruiting.
The argument appears to be rather thin: “It’s tenured faculty members at my university who’ve fought for partner benefits, who’ve fought for benefits for adjuncts, who’ve fought for greater transparency in the tenure process. It’s tenured faculty who make sure that things other than the bottom line go into administrative decision-making.”
None of these have anything to do with education. One could make the same weak arguments for any other occupation. It would be better if academia would explain why it is that academics should have tenure but, for example, machinists do not.
I wouldn’t claim that that’s the only justification for tenure, and I’m not sure whether Dr. Crazy would, either. I linked to the post, and quoted that bit because I think it’s an interesting and useful counter to the standard anti-tenure myth, namely that faculty who get tenure rapidly become “dead wood,” and contribute nothing useful to the institution. There are a few people at any institution hanging on well past their sell-by date, but for the most part, tenured faculty make a huge positive contribution to their institutions and to the larger community.
I would note that, while machinists in general are not provided the protections of tenure, they do enjoy some legal protection against firing for doing the sort of things that Dr. Crazy highlights, most of which are in the general range of activities of a good union organization. And in places with good unions, machinists do have protection against capricious firing, which is really what tenure is– it’s not impossible to fire a tenured faculty member, but it requires good cause and extensive documentation.
The whole concept of academics determining tenure is a little hard to grok. I guess bus drivers should decide which bus drivers have employment for life? Or does this apply only if your brain case is above a certain size? Should doctors decide which doctors get guaranteed employment forever? What about doctors that begin making mistakes?
I honestly have no idea what your objection is, here. Do I think that, in general, decisions about hiring and firing and continuing employment should be made by people who are in the same business? Yes, absolutely. If you’re looking to keep only the very best bus drivers, who better to ask than other bus drivers? I’m pretty sure that if you want to know who the best doctors in a given practice or hospital are, the people to ask are other doctors, not hospital administrators or insurance company functionaries.
If you think that academics are awarding tenure to undeserving people in a mutual-back-scratching arrangement, then you’re obviously hanging around a different crowd of academics than I am.
Another profession in the US that gets lifetime employment; certain judgeships. The reason for doing this is so that they are immune to bias when making judgements. I don’t see how this would relate to academia, except for those who teach.
This is an old argument, that’s been had a thousand times before. There’s no purpose served in recapitulating it here– if you really haven’t heard it before, or feel some inexplicable need to hear it again, Google “academic freedom,” and you’ll find yourself with hours of reading material.
“Do I think that, in general, decisions about hiring and firing and continuing employment should be made by people who are in the same business? Yes, absolutely.”
Tenure is not “hiring and firing and continuing employment” it is “permanent employment”. You’re changing the terms of discussion. Bus drivers have never had a guarantee of permanent employment. An alternative term for tenure is “sinecure”.
In addition, the usual human arrangement for determining employment is through “management”. The basic idea is that an individual is given responsibility for running the department and is punished or rewarded according to how well the department does. That person is motivated to choose hard workers (and typically rewards themselves well above average). You might not like the idea, but the most successful companies on the planet are all organized on this concept.
As far as protection from arbitrary firing, any employee of the government already has that in spades. Employees of large businesses generally are protected by unions. In addition, managers who unfairly deal with their employees end up with problems that reduce their ability to produce and their managers eliminate them. (It takes a while, but I’ve seen this in action.)
Getting on to the subject of academic freedom, the movie “Expelled” soon gives the, uh, red state version of the same argument. Half the reason I got out of academia is the politics. I was a conservative grad student and I felt rather alone in a department that was as left wing as every other physics department. (The other half of why I left academia is that I really don’t like writing papers, LOL.)
Frankly, I’d rather have my employment determined by one person (who I choose according to which place I go) than have it be a group decision by people who universally hate everyone of the opposite political persuasion and who let their bias seep into everything they do. (Walk down the hallway and look at the crap on their doors.) And by the way, employment at most large companies is controlled by “human resources” which prevent various unfair things from happening. For instance, every company I’ve worked at is more racially balanced, and more politically balanced, than physics academia.
If the only way that academics achieve academic freedom is by obtaining tenure that’s a pretty dismal comment on academia. In a big company, one cannot be fired except for cause. Layoffs are another story of course.
This is not a conversation that is going to go anywhere productive, and I’m suffering a miserable allergy flare-up right at the moment, so I’m a little short-tempered. There will undoubtedly be some occasion in the future when I feel like pounding my head against this particular wall again, and I’ll post something on it at that time.
The thing is that the university is not a teaching company or an R&D corporation. Faculty don’t work for administrators, and administrators aren’t owners. These are just some of the reasons why the comparison to for profit corporations doesn’t work.