Beyond "The Faculty Lounges"

Before reading further, please check out my latest publication: Book Review in Raging Chicken Press of The Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons You Won't Get the College Education You Pay For

All caught up?

Really?

Come on...it's not long and it's well-written (my bias is showing). ;)

Ok. You get the idea behind this book. Now consider some perspectives from a sampling of my colleagues around the nation. These folks range from adjuncts and instructors to assistant professors and the higher education establishments they hail from include large research universities, public state-funded universities, and smaller regional colleges.

I asked my colleagues the question that got Riley her book contract: Should tenure exist? Interestingly, of the 20 people who responded, six answered "no," 12 answered "yes," and then the responses got fuzzier. Five people said "yes and no," two people didn't know ("hmm") and one person said tenure should exist for university professors, but not high school teachers.

One respondent (who is actively seeking a tenure-track position) currently teaches at a small Southern university and explained her "yes and no" response this way, "I think the tenure system in state universities as it exists could use some revamping. For example, I do have an issue with the notion that once someone has tenure, they have to basically commit a felony offense to be removed. I have, unfortunately, experienced tenured faculty who took advantage of their job security to basically quit being effective in their job. Anyway, not sure what the "best" solution is, but love the discussion."

Another respondent at a large Southern research university said of her uncertainty, "I think the system could use improvements. I wonder if we could figure out a way to value a wider range of intellectual contributions. This may be unique to my experience, but during my process I had to shy away from certain items to match my unit's ideal vita."

Although I was very hard on Riley's demand for abolishing tenure, I admit that she does touch on a subject that is worthy of debate. While the above two academics admitted their concern and uncertainty about the tenure system, some respondents flat-out agreed with Riley's argument based on personal experiences in academia.

One colleague who has a non-tenure-track instructor position at a Northeast state university called tenure an "antiquated system": "Other people do not have such job security. Teaching should be like any other form of employment: Those who work well and are respected should be promoted. Plus, institutions use tenure as a weapon: If one is not on a tenure track, there is no salary increase. Furthermore, if you want to earn tenure, you'd best watch what you say about the administration. I've never had to keep so 'quiet' in all my years of marketing, as well as working in restaurants or hotels."

Perhaps there is something to Riley's argument after all, although I won't go so far as to agree with abolishing tenure. Change is necessary, especially when it comes to a better balance between teaching and research, but change does not always require the death of a system. Or does it?

One respondent at a regional Southern university who is on the tenure-track and close to going up for tenure has a decidedly negative view of the system, listing the following problems:

• Tenure is just an escape clause that the higher powers can use to "easily" dismiss junior faculty that they don't want.
• Universities now have a clause so that they can dismiss a position/department/section due to financial exigency.
• Tenure has lost its meaning, in my humble opinion.
• Junior faculty should not be put through heck for something that can be taken away.

If these smart people who have had the skill, luck, and timing to land a coveted tenure-track position share the view that tenure is a damaged and somewhat irrelevant system, what do supporters of tenure have to say? Riley goes on and on about the main reason that academics give for needing tenure is "academic freedom," but claims that no one has specifically defined what academic freedom is exactly. Of course, many organizations have done so, including the American Association of University Professors and Academics for Academic Freedom. Clearly, Riley missed these somehow in her "research." Suspect, at best, that. 

When I contacted my respondents, I asked them how they defined academic freedom and got an array of responses, but most focused on being able to say what you want in various venues without fear of negative consequences. Following are a sampling of the responses:

"To be able to offer constructive criticism to academic models (university, society, etc), without fear of repercussions."

 "Academic freedom is the ability to research and teach controversial topics without having to fear being fired either because too many students complain about the content of your classes or administrators and other faculty have a problem with the content of your research."

"The ability to research and teach ANY topic that contributes to our scientific knowledge or enriches students' lives in a responsible manner regardless of office politics, funding responsibilities, publishing pressures, etc."

When I asked a few of those who support the existence of tenure what their reasons were, the answers focused on protection from politically- or personally-motivated repercussions for teaching or speaking out on a subject or in a way that opposes the administration's position. For instance, one colleague cited an untenured friend who teaches for a well-known university that supports a particularly damaging practice in that state. This person's friend knows that he is risking his job every time he speaks out against this practice. This seems a reasonable fear in a corporate university environment where faculty are held accountable to "the boss" instead of "the greater good," which is more in line with the altrustic goals of a university education.

One colleague explained her support of tenure thusly,

"I think any school can get rid of anybody for some reason if they really tried, but tenure makes the burden of proof much higher on the administration for proving a case as to why someone needs to be removed.

"Another argument in favor of tenure is that having tenure attracts many people to the profession that may not otherwise choose academia. If you think about it, tenure is quickly becoming one of the few perks of our profession that we cannot get anywhere else. The pay is not on par with what other people with our education level can attain and with the budgets being the way they have become we are increasingly put in the position to do our jobs with less resources and little monetary gain. Tenure, once received, is something no one can take away from us and having job security after a certain point in this day in age is one thing that academia can offer over other more lucrative professions."

Another colleague, who is a PhD candidate at a Northeast research university with hopes of landing a tenure-track position, said, "Having only being exposed to one (horribly acrimonious, provincial, and dysfunctional) department, my argument for tenure is simply that it seems the only way in a department like that to be able to focus your efforts on teaching/researching and not constantly covering your ass/kissing ass/ kicking ass."

So if tenure is necessary to protect faculty from the whims of unreasonable administrators and distracting political departmental BS, how could the system be revised or changed to address the legitimate concerns of people who have been hurt or held back by the system? What alternative could be put in place to maintain this level of protection for faculty, but open the doors a bit for promotional opportunities for those who are extremely committed to teaching excellence?

My suggestion for improving the tenure system is to create two "tracks" of tenure - one for teaching professors and one for research professors. The designation would be noted in job ads and reflected in the interview process so that only the professors who truly enjoy and WANT to teach are hired to do so, but whose research responsibilities are either minimal or non-existent (say teaching 80%, university/department/community service 15%, research requirements for tenure 5%).

And universities that value research for grant money and national/international fame can designate certain tracks for research-only professors (say the reverse of the teaching track: 80% research with increased publication requirements to earn tenure, 15% university/dept/community service and 5% teaching, which would allow for perhaps one graduate class per year, but zero undergrad classes) - these would be the professors who students tend to dislike the most - the ones who have zero interest in teaching and make next to no effort to create courses and classroom environments conducive to effective learning.

We have all experienced this classroom and if you teach small classes, you've probably heard your students lament one or two professors who have all but checked out of the teaching process. Instead of passing negative judgment on these folks, why not just change their track designation? That way, even teaching universities can have a certain contingent of faculty whose job it is to research like mad, producing articles, books,and generating money and fame for the university.

That's my suggestion. What's yours?