|
« AAUP Homepage
|
State of the Profession: Tenure and Diversity
By Anita Levy
It is no exaggeration to say that tenure has always been under attack. Indeed it may very well be that, like its counterpart academic freedom, the meaning of tenure obtains its rhetorical clarity and coherence only when its existence is threatened. That the struggle over tenure has been waged largely on the terrain of language is confirmed by the myriad volumes devoted to the subject that have been published in the last forty years. This is not to say that the assault on tenure, raging hot and cold over the years, is purely a matter of language. The past three decades have witnessed a significant reduction in tenure-line positions, along with a tremendous increase in contingent faculty positions. Words become real when faculty without tenure or its equivalent lose the protection of academic freedom, forfeit the assurance of economic security, and endure conditions under which they cannot participate in the governance of their institutions without fear of retribution.
This historic shift in the shape of the American university has been fueled by arguments against tenure, which have changed significantly over the years. At the risk of over-simplification, it is fair to say that such arguments—among them the New Pathways project discussed by Mary Burgan in the From the General Secretary column in this and the past two issues of Academe—initially objected to tenure on the grounds that it interfered with scholarly productivity. Such objections still linger in the form of accusations of "deadwood," faculty who have not conducted research or written a word in years. But since 1964, when Fritz Machlup countered such charges in his essay, "In Defense of Academic Tenure," studies have demonstrated that tenured faculty are, in fact, highly productive. Without data to support claims concerning tenure and productivity, the terms of the argument against tenure began in the 1990s to shift in a significant new direction.
No longer is tenure held up as the scourge of scholarly productivity. Instead, it is now decried as an obstacle that must be overcome for diversity to achieve its correct proportions in the academy. Most recently, Richard Chait, professor of higher education at Harvard University, and Cathy Trower, senior researcher there, have argued that tenure is bad for women and scholars of color in that it prevents their entrance into the academy and impedes their success once they arrive. There is ample evidence to suggest, however, that the tenure system is adjusting to demographic changes in the academy, and is capable of including women and scholars of color. Indeed, recent data on the new cohort of faculty indicate that it is much more diverse than Trower and Chait's figures would indicate. More striking are the numbers that tell us not of the lack of diversity, but rather of the precipitous rise in appointments off the tenure track, a phenomenon virtually unknown thirty years ago.
Some would have us believe that tenure itself is the problem preventing women and scholars of color from amplifying their record of achievement in the academy. Allow me to propose an entirely different interpretation. Is it not in actuality the shrinking availability of tenure-line positions that must be held mostly accountable if there is indeed a lack of diversity in the academic profession? For just as women and scholars of color are poised to enter the academy in greater numbers, a series of developments have coalesced to narrow the opportunities available to them. The dramatic increase in contingent appointments and the consequent narrowing of opportunities for employment on the tenure line, as well as the imposition, often under faculty initiative, of existing standards for tenure in an unfair, inequitable, or untimely manner are among the major reasons why young women and men of ability, including scholars of color, may face greater difficulties finding and retaining tenurable positions.
The solution to the problem is not to jettison tenure, but rather to create more tenure lines, and to ensure fair and equitable tenure practices. That is why the AAUP has been consistent in its efforts over the years, amid the constant barrage of attacks on tenure, to improve working conditions for all faculty by maintaining the need for clear expectations and standards in the tenure process, by developing policy statements on family responsibilities and on contingent faculty, by arguing for responsible tenure-line conversion policies, and through continuing advocacy of affirmative action. We must ask ourselves, would any faculty member—black, white, or brown, female or male, scientist or humanist—and the institution she or he serves really be better off without tenure? I think not.
Anita Levy is associate secretary in the AAUP's Department of Academic Freedom and Tenure
|