Do away with tenure — and not because of politics
Last month, a piece on academic tenure appeared in this newspaper. In “Conservatives target academic perk,” Heather Hollingsworth argued that tenure is being attacked by conservatives as a means of weakening the hold that liberal professors have on higher education. I’d like to offer a different take on tenure and present some nonpolitical reasons why I think it desirable that tenure be eliminated.
At colleges and universities, tenure is granted after a newly hired faculty member has performed satisfactorily over a period of, typically, five or six years. The criteria for granting tenure vary with the institution: The requirements, for example, at Harvard are more demanding than at Muhlenberg. Once tenure is granted, a faculty member can be dismissed only for narrowly defined reasons. It would not be overly misleading to say that tenure guarantees a job for life.
The world of my remembered youth is different from the world of today. In those earlier days, it was still common for business firms to offer, albeit informally, what amounted to tenure. An accountant, for example, who started at Bethlehem Steel could feel reasonably confident that he or she could retire from that firm some 40 or so years later. Working for several different firms over the course of one’s career is a fairly recent reality and expectation. “Tenure” is no longer offered in the business world. Why should it persist only in the Groves of Academe?
Those who support tenure usually argue that it protects a professor’s freedom of speech, his or her right to express unpopular ideas. Sometimes, it has importantly served that need. On one occasion, indeed, I benefited from the protection that tenure offered. But, that personal experience had more to do with campus politics than freedom of speech.
But, I believe that tenure should be eliminated. I’ve already referred to the job security or “tenure” that business firms once offered and that is no longer routinely encountered. And, as noted, I see no reason why lifetime
job guarantees should be distinctly provided only in the academic world.
Many people view a college professor’s job as teaching classes. A college faculty member usually meets classes two or times per week over a 30 week academic year. Life for professors who do little more than meet their classes can be very easy, a full salary for the equivalent of less than six work weeks per year. And, additionally, there is the long summer break that is free from teaching responsibilities.
Most university professors put in far more work hours than that minimally noted above. At Penn State, where the state Legislature once required all faculty members to report the number of hours worked per week, a professor of psychology was rumored to have reported 168 hours (24 times
seven). As a Freudian, he claimed that even his sleeping hours should be counted.
In my experience, most tenured professors continue to discharge their professional duties responsibly, keeping reasonably up to date with developments in their academic field, conscientiously preparing for class and continuing to actively pursue their research. But, there are a significant few who do not, and still more that are somewhat lax in meeting their reasonably expected responsibilities. I do not think that they should be protected; rather, without behavioral change, they should be dismissed. In passing, I might note that the retention of the ineffective teacher is, perhaps, still more of a problem in primary and secondary public institutions where teachers are also granted
tenure and are additionally protected by union regulations.
Tenure, guaranteed job security, is a valuable job perk; it has a price. If it were eliminated, economic logic suggests that there would be a rise in faculty salaries, i.e., the loss of a valuable perk would require some offsetting compensation. Many of my former colleagues would have preferred the increased salary of renewal contracts to the protection of tenure.
Without the incentive tenure, there is a reason to believe both teaching and research performance would improve. Of course, increased faculty salaries mean increased institutional costs. But, as noted, those additional institutional costs might incentivize enhanced teaching and research performance. Still, I may be criticized for putting the economic
well-being of the individual faculty member above that of the institution; I plead “guilty.”
Tenure also encourages older faculty members to delay their retirement. Although growing old does not necessarily lead to a decline in teaching effectiveness or research productivity, there is, I believe, a significant correlation. In addition, earlier retirement provides more opportunities for newer, more up-todate, and often more enthusiastic faculty members to launch their academic careers.
Job security should be based on performance not tenure. You may disagree.