|
« AAUP Homepage
|
State of the Profession: Tenure in Perspective
By Martin Snyder
The history of American higher education has witnessed periodic challenges to the concept and practice of tenure. Thus the current wave of criticism is neither surprising nor novel. The argument against tenure this time, despite various nuances of language, fundamentally amounts to this: tenure is bad for business. Current opponents of tenure contend that it diminishes productivity (the "deadwood" argument), hampers flexibility (the "new challenges" argument), and discriminates against new and innovative faculty (the "old-guard, elitist" argument). Several authors in this issue of Academe have effectively, indeed eloquently, rebutted the specifics of these arguments.
The fundamental problem with the "business" argument, of course, is that colleges and universities, like hospitals and churches, are not businesses. Yes, there are business aspects to their operations—physical plants to maintain, payrolls to meet, and bottom lines to struggle with. But the business operations are merely the means to an end. Their purpose, unlike that of true businesses, is not to make a profit, but to provide an irreplaceable human service. To treat them as just more grist for the corporate mill is to do the community they serve a grave injustice. One need look only at the health-care disaster in this country to see the logical consequences of applying a managerial model to nonbusiness enterprises.
As this issue’s interview with Lawrence Poston makes clear, challenges to the practice of tenure take two basic forms these days: bribery and attrition. The "bribery" approach offers new faculty or already-tenured faculty the choice of alternative rewards in lieu of tenure. The "choice" for vulnerable, and at times desperate, new faculty is no real choice. And senior faculty who give up tenure for other perquisites risk their futures on the word of an administration already committed to corporate flexibility. There is, however, a more basic issue. While personal property rights do indeed inhere in tenure, its essential value lies in the benefit it provides to the larger academic community and to the common good of society. It should not be traded away for individual advantage.
The "alternative-to-tenure" approach has captured public attention, though few faculty members seem to have taken up the offer. Less publicized, but more insidious is the gradual, intentional strangling of tenure through attrition. As our colleagues retire, we have all seen positions fall vacant or change into non-tenure-track or part-time slots. Some administrators believe that the demographics of an aging professoriate will provide the ultimate solution to the "problem" of tenure. Aggressive action on the part of faculty is urgently needed to fight for the retention of tenure-track positions and to educate administrations and boards of trustees about the fundamental value of tenure.
Centuries ago, when universities were still in their infancy, Albert of Lauingen, styled even by his contemporaries as "The Great," had something to say on nearly every topic. It is not surprising that the preeminent polymath of his day would have held a few opinions people would now reject. But about education, Albert got it right. He characterized the purpose of education as the search for truth in the joy of community. Let us examine briefly each of the elements in Albert’s concept of education and consider how they relate to tenure.
First, education is a search that may consume years, the length of a career, even an entire life. It takes time. Next, the goal of education is the discovery of truth—not the docile acceptance of some predetermined political, corporate, or ecclesiastical dogma. That requires freedom. Next, education provides a deeply satisfying sense of joy for professors who are not distracted by constant demands to prove their worth or to fund their positions through successful grantsmanship. Without security, however, there is no joy. Finally, education at its very best occurs not in isolated labs or offices, but through collegial connections within and across institutions and through disciplinary networks. But a community of scholars requires stability.
Time, freedom, security, and stability—these are the fundamental and enduring results of tenure. Take away tenure and its resulting benefits, and the entire purpose of higher education is defeated. Albert the Great understood that in the thirteenth century.
Before we march boldly into the corporate future, we should examine critically the notion that everything can be viewed as a commodity and that education is just another commodity produced for marketing. Application of this form of economic fundamentalism to higher education will indeed destroy tenure and education itself.
Martin Snyder is AAUP program director for academic freedom and professional standards.
|