Recent efforts in statehouses around the United States, most notably in Madison, Wisconsin, to abolish public employees' and K-12 teachers' collective bargaining rights suggest that attacks on the tenure system in public higher education will not be far behind. To those who see everything in terms of the marketplace, tenure can seem anti-competitive and inefficient: if companies don't offer tenure, why should universities? Lost on most critics of tenure is the fact that universities are much more like municipalities than they are like companies, and tenured faculty are more like the property owners in a community than employees in a business.
It's not surprising that such arguments fall on deaf ears among governors and legislators trying to cut budgets and reduce the size of government. The public pressure to keep tuition increases down, the widespread misunderstanding of faculty workloads (faculty work on average over 60 hours/week), and the growing anti-intellectualism in our public discourse, may further embolden those who see tenure as a costly and cushy deal, or who simply do not like or trust academics for whatever reason. So far, public universities have largely remained below the radar among those who have shown a startling animosity toward public-sector employees. Given what we have witnessed in Madison, however, hoping that tenure will remain unchallenged and that universities can successfully fend off attacks on tenure as they largely have in the past do not seem like effective strategies.
Instead, when it comes to tenure, faculty need to "use it or lose it." In other words, the best defense of tenure is a good offense, remembering why we have tenure in the first place and putting it to use in ways that the public and even skeptical politicians will recognize as valuable and worth protecting. One of the primary purposes of tenure is to protect faculty who speak out about potentially controversial subjects from retribution. As such, tenure largely serves the public interest by giving people access to pertinent facts and to the "truth" as currently understood by those with expertise in a specific area. Drawing attention to the public benefit that tenure provides seems essential at a time when some will want to portray it as an undeserved privilege.
With the receipt of tenure comes a responsibility to serve not just as educators and researchers, but also as public commentators, addressing a broad audience about issues of general interest from the perspective of a particular discipline. In addition to publishing in journals, tenured faculty need to write or speak to the public about their work in ways and through venues accessible to everyone. To demonstrate the value of tenure, faculty have to demonstrate the reason we have it to begin with by taking stands on important topics that may require the protection it provides.
That may seem like a risky approach. It might seem safer for tenured faculty to keep a low profile and wait out the current wave of cost cutting, while avoiding possibly controversial issues that might draw the attention of and even antagonize the very politicians who may look for reasons to go after tenure. I understand that sentiment, and while addressing controversial issues may anger a few, not doing so could disaffect a far greater number of people if speaking out would have made a difference in the public understanding of an issue or led to an improved outcome as a result.
It's time for tenured faculty to recognize their role and use the variety of tools at their disposal to reach out to a broad public before they lose that capability altogether.
Thomas Fisher is the Dean of the College of Design at the University of Minnesota.
Follow Thomas Fisher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@MNDesignDean
John Thompson: Steve Brill's Destructive Morality Play
If a professor gets tenure then that person owes it to their profession, the school and the students to at least show up once in a while. Or go paint houses.
Really, Professor. Anyone interested in an adjunct's point of view where schools employ "part-time" faculty with Walmart-like compensation and no benefits? How is this not like a business? What about the consumerist culture which now pervades colleges and universities with grade inflation and enabling rather than challenging students?
I don't want tenure; I want a living wage. The $61,000 salary cited below sounds like a fortune to me.
And to those with tenure and full-time professional status, they'll coming after you--eventually. The adjunct system is a grievous wrong. If it were to be righted, it would need all faculty banding together.
As I enter my twentieth year of teaching college English, I can say that my teaching load's still four courses per semester and that I grade in the range of 7,500 typed pages per school year. With course preparations, committee work and all of the other requirements of my job, I put in more than full-time hours, and only after those are done can I focus on the second (required) part of my job: research and creative work: another at least 20 hours a week.
I don't make six-figures -- probably never will. (The median salary for an associate professor of English is approximately $61,000.)
Please don't take any of this as woe-is-me-ing. I have the greatest job in the world: sharing ideas, talking with other people about words and meaning. I said to a friend of mine (Hi, Julie) just the other day: anyone with experience and credentials like mine in another profession wouldn't be driving a seven-year-old Kia Rio. I, however, am paid in time, time to pursue what's important to me, and I willingly give up creature comforts (although I'd really like a new car) and large paychecks for that.
Tenure produces an occasional anecdote that anti-tenure zealots can twist to their uses and a lot of good for schools. But as I said, the anti-tenure zealots aren't the sort that are interested in facts.
And so you can see that teachers and teachers unions actually agree that "lousy" teachers should not keep their jobs, here is a quote from a December 2010 article.
"If someone's incompetent, they shouldn't be in the classroom," said Ted Kirsch, president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Federation of Teachers and past president of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. Kirsch defended the protection offered by tenure while acknowledging that the evaluation process could be improved. "If people commit certain indiscretions dealing with kids, they shouldn't be there. All we are saying is they should have their day in court."
What you think works leads to a very long time while that teacher is still in a classroom or the District has to hire a replacement and pay two salaries and benefits packages.
Theory is nice. But it is not always reality. 99.4% of Pennsylvania teachers are rated satisfactory every year. No profession can claim that rate of competency. Bu do you know why? because if the teacher gets an unsatisfactory rating the unions file a grievance and the cost are too burdensome.
The ONLY people for tenure are teachers and union people. Why? {...}
The answere is NOT ignorance, as you unjustly eluded too. It is simple common sense.
-faculty work on average over 60 hours/week-
On?
and
You of course have the studies available for all to read...
Oh and the study! Here you go:
http://theapple.monster.com/careers/articles/4039-when-where-and-how-much-do-us-teachers-work
As my former roommate and my wife will vouch, I work more hours then they do as a teacher-and they have 9 to 5 jobs.
Take away the best teachers and bashing educators...is their start. Soon minimum wages for all teachers!!! Go America!!!!
Well... let me tell you the difference in demeanor & general attitude between the have's (>10 years) and the havenot's (
University tenure is safe, conservatives don't need to dislocate the public sector workforce to the private sector to achieve their objectives.
Their assault on public university higher education has been very succesful in reducing funding and making the costs of public universities much closer to private. Even less than private in many cases depending on low income students of high criteria.