Why Tenure Still Matters
upholding these protections enables a thriving marketplace of ideas
Scott, you impress me: winning three elections in four years, in a largely democratic state, including the only governor to withstand a recall vote. You’re also college degree-less, which is even more astounding (note: my boss is too). And even though I’m the step-son of a labor-leader fifth grade teacher and married to an academic, I’m still intrigued by you. I want the presidential candidates to force a real voting decision on me, for once in my life.
But when you say things like this, it gives me pause:
“Maybe it’s time for faculty and staff to start thinking about teaching more classes and doing more work.” — Scott Walker, quoted in Politico
You’ve made changes recently to the tenure system in Wisconsin that you say “give the state university system more flexibility and financial leverage.” According to Politico,
…the changes allow the University of Wisconsin system Board of Regents — 16 of whose 18 members are appointed by the governor — to set tenure policies instead of having tenure protections spelled out in state law.
More specifically:
“Regents can [now] fire faculty when they deem it necessary because a program has been discontinued or changed in other ways, not just when a financial emergency exists.”
So, to get this straight, political appointees can now shut down any program they wish and fire any professor they please at any time. Hmm. I wonder how the Political Science Department feels about this one, should they dare to cross the political views of the administration ever again. Or the Journalism Department, lest their students conduct any investigative reporting on the Regents.
I understand the financial pressures, agree deeply in our need to both spend responsibly and reform the system of tenure. But the primary reason to modify tenure should be to fire ineffective or harmful professors, not to pull financial levers or reactively steer programs toward (politically or otherwise) popular topics. Leaving academic departments and posts open to the whims and popularity of political appointees — whether they’re ‘worthy’ of being kept within the budget — is short sighted.
Tenure enables marketplaces of ideas to thrive
You want to give the state “financial leverage?” Enable a marketplace of research, ideas and free-thinkers to thrive. Systems that enable unfettered exploration, without fear of political reprisals or popular opinions, can make that happen. It attracts the most creative and forward-looking thinkers, and ultimately funding (public, foundation, and private sector) and jobs (of all kinds).
Back to the quote at the top — that “faculty and staff [need to] to start thinking about teaching more classes and doing more work.” That statement demonstrates a disturbing oversimplification. It shines a light on the lack of understanding for what unfettered inquiry can deliver, and a misclassification of the value of faculty. And it likely won’t lead to better learning outcomes and make the system solvent.
Even if you say “hey, we’re not repealing tenure, we just want flexibility,” that’s not the signal you’re sending. If I were a world-class academic, perhaps even one with potentially game-changing research under my hat, I’d be turning my eyes toward other state universities. Especially one with a governor who doesn’t tell me I should be working harder, because I already work my ass off.
How might we be fiscally responsible without compromising unfettered inquiry and marketplaces of ideas? Eliminating tenure protection is not the answer.
