It is this last point on which I wish to expound in my column. (My apologies for its length).
There is rarely an article published in the popular media that does not portray "tenure" as a "job for life." Connections to academic freedom, if present at all, take on a minor importance in the article, and are often denigrated as an anachronism of the past. Tenure is portrayed as something which has little relevance in "today's society." Craig's article makes the connections clear, not just as an anecdote from the McCarthy era, but as something real in our time. Yet our constituents have little time or interest in understanding the connections between academic freedom and tenure. Why is that?
I think the real threat to our profession isn't tenure per se, but economics. The continued pressures on academic institutions to charge higher tuition prices so they can then heavily discount via financial aid, all the while facing a declining population of traditional aged students, have left most institutions in dire financial straits. While private institutions can avoid some public scrutiny of their financial situations, public institutions can not. The 1990's will be known for "downsizing", if nothing else. It shouldn't be surprising, therefore, that our constituents' reactions to red ink at academic institutions is to "get rid of the excesses." In this climate, tenure becomes - in the public's eye - a legal barrier to change. To stereotype: "Faculty - who only work 9 to 12 hours a week anyway - are protected by an indefensible obstacle to any serious reconstructive efforts."
Why don't our supporters rally to our cause? The popular phrase is "Been there. Done that." Very few of our contemporaries have not directly or indirectly felt the impact of the corporate drive for "efficiency." It comes across as disingenuous to the public when we claim downsizing in higher education is "only" a disguised effort to weed out the malcontents - to attack academic freedom. Tenure simply becomes a focal point for those who wish to portray academics as the out-of-touch players in a modern world.
Can't we simply reassert the "truth" and convince the decision-makers of our worth? But do we really want to make the public choose between education and health care when the budget pool is shrinking? Can we really successfully argue for spending on education (a long-term investment) over public safety (with immediate implications)? My guess is no.
Private institutions are certainly not immune to the scrutiny of their constituents. A disproportionate number of governing board members, I suspect, are more concerned with the financial stability of their institutions than they are with unquestioned support for faculty rights to "say whatever they want" without threat of retribution. Indeed, privates may face even greater financial woes than the publics. Average 'net' tuition prices in the US are reported to be only about 60% of the sticker price. The 40% difference is more or less directly funneled back to students in the form of financial aid. The effect of this heavy discounting is to push the sticker prices even higher so as to enable greater discounts to less affluent students. Higher education, in essence, is playing Robin Hood with families.
In Minnesota these pressures are all too apparent. The University of Minnesota and the State University System institutions obviously are the most apparent in the popular press. Not only is the University of Minnesota's Academic Health Care System facing duress, but several of the State University institutions are announcing cuts in the face of financial pressures. (St. Cloud State is the most recent I know of, where 35 positions are going to be eliminated.) The privates have their share of woes as well. I have heard of at least two of the 17 private institutions in the state where the grapevine suggests serious discussions are taking, or have taken, place which include loss of positions.
So what is the resolution?
I would argue we have already lost the battle. We simply cannot do anything to redirect the world economy and to refocus the public's appetite for higher education. In this environment the best we can hope for is to minimize the long-term damage budget-cutting will have on the education system. Realistically, this suggests to me two strategies.
First, we must continually work to educate the public - and especially our constituencies - as to the REAL meaning of tenure. Tenure really does mean a "commitment to due process." It really is NOT a contract for life. It is in the context of protection of academic freedom that we must defend tenure. It is indefensible to our constituents in any other context.
In particular, we must clarify for the public the conditions under which our employment continues. A tenured faculty member can ALWAYS be terminated for cause - after a due process hearing. Don't be squeamish about reiterating this fact to the public. In addition, at most institutions, a tenured faculty can be terminated for 1) financial exigency, or 2) elimination of a program or department. What is missing? Precisely the immediate irritant at the University of Minnesota. How does an institution deal with a declining, but not totally disappearing, department or program like the Medical School?
Because of the potential for abuse, the academe has argued against anything resembling partial retrenchment. As a consequence, efforts around the country abound which would eliminate tenure or to unilaterally change it in very adverse ways. So my second strategy is that we, as a profession, need to be in the fore with positive mechanisms to modify the conditions of tenure in ways which still protect academic freedom for faculty and tenure as an institution. If we do not provide the leadership in "reforming" tenure, it will be reformed for us by those who see no value in its preservation. For my part, I have argued for precisely such protection in the St. Thomas rank and tenure policy. I would rather see an explicit commitment by the institution to retrain and retain faculty in new roles, than to hope for the best when the Trustees start looking at the bottom line.
Make no mistake about it, tenure is changing. I urge you to become involved in the education of the public and in the formation of institutional policies before your tenure is adversely impacted by external pressures.
Joe Kreitzer
Dr. Mary Burgan, Executive Secretary of the AAUP, National Office
at Macalester College, April 6th, 10:00 a.m. to noon
Chapel Lounge (downstairs in the Weyerhaeuser Chapel Building)
Dr. Burgan will discuss national efforts to attack tenure and AAUP's efforts to counter those attacks.
The spring newsletter has reported this comparative data for over a decade. With regard to the University of Minnesota the comparison has been with the country's top ranked research universities. Writing in 1983 and using 1982 rankings of the National Research Council (NRC), David S. Webster identified the country's 30 top ranked research universities. (With a tie for the rank of 30, Webster actually identified 31 universities, but salary data for the CUNY Graduate Center was seldom available.) This year, the comparison is again with top ranked research universities. Based on work by Craig Swan using the most recent NRC rankings and described elsewhere in this newsletter, Table 1 includes 34 universities as five schools tied for the rank of 30. Five schools passed Minnesota in rank, UC San Diego, Washington (Seattle), Texas, Duke, and Johns Hopkins. In addition 6 new schools made it into the top 30, UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara, Arizona, Rochester, and Stony Brook. CUNY, Rockefeller and Indiana have slipped below 30 in these rankings.
Full professors at Minnesota now rank 30/34 at $12,900 below the mean. Associates rank 29/34 at $6,400 below the mean. There is a slight improvement for Assistant Professors where Minnesota faces significant competitive pressures when hiring. Salaries for Assistant Professors rank 25/34 at $3,200 below the mean. Salaries at Minnesota continue to be mired at the bottom of those at top ranked research universities.
Comparing Minnesota to the 12 schools of the "Big Ten" plus Chicago, full professors rank 9/12 at $5,600 below the mean, Associates rank 10/12 at $4,000 below the mean, and Assistant Professors rank 7/12 at $1,700 below the mean.
Our rank in reputation seems to be approaching our rank in salaries. This is a result that serves neither the faculty nor the state well. While there might be a short term budgetary savings to the state if faculty salaries are allowed to remain uncompetitive, the longer term loss as Minnesota ceases to be a major research university would be much greater. For example, on average faculty members bring in non-state dollars for support of research, training and public service that total twice their University salary. It is estimated that this record of success on the part of the faculty supports over 10,000 jobs in Minnesota. Over 3,000 companies have been identified that were founded or are owned by University alumni and faculty. They employ over 100,000 Minnesotans. Agricultural products developed at the University of Minnesota accounted for 80% of Minnesota agricultural exports in 1990. University graduates account for 50% of Minnesota physicians, 80% of Minnesota dentists and 60% of Minnesota pharmacists and veterinarians.
The ability of the University faculty to sustain this record of achievement and contribution to the state economy is at risk. The change in rankings in 1995 show just how much risk is involved. We are in danger of being penny wise and pound foolish.
The 1995 report is based on information collected between 1992 and 1993. Major changes from the 1982 report include the addition of new fields in the humanities, physical sciences and engineering along with a taxonomic change in the biological sciences. Two new fields were surveyed in the humanities: Comparative Literature and Religion. Two new fields were surveyed in the physical sciences: Oceanography and Astrophysics/Astronomy. Four new fields were surveyed in engineering: Aerospace, Biomedical, Industrial and Materials Science. The changes in the biological sciences were more systematic and are best referred to as a new taxonomy.
At Minnesota, 39 programs were included in the latest NRC rankings. In terms of quality of faculty, five programs ranked in the top ten nationally: Chemical Engineering, Geography, Psychology, Mechanical Engineering and Economics. Seven other programs ranked between 11th and 15th: German, Aerospace Engineering, Civil Engineering, Political Science, Statistics, Mathematics, and Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. On average the ranking of the quality of graduate program for these programs was even better than the ranking of the quality of faculty.
While the achievements of these individuals programs are to be applauded along with the achievements of other programs that showed improvement, there is substantial room for concern when considering graduate programs at the University as a whole. The NRC report contains a bewildering array of information organized by disciplines. It contains little information that aggregates across institutions. With time to consider the report as a whole, there is clear evidence that the competition is getting tougher and that relative to that competition Minnesota, as an institution, has slipped.
What is the evidence about slippage for the institution as a whole? Writing in 1983, David Webster ranked graduate schools as of 1982 by aggregating the rankings of individual programs. Webster's analysis ranked Minnesota 16th, tied with Texas. A similar analysis applied to the most recent NRC rankings shows Minnesota ranked 21. Webster also reviewed earlier studies and reports that in 1959 and 1966 Minnesota was ranked 12th while by 1970 Minnesota's rank had slipped to 16th.
Table 3 compares Webster's results using the 1982 rankings and mine using the 1995 rankings. There are a number of alternative ways of computing these rankings and alternatives do affect Minnesota's rank. As a generalization, Minnesota's rank tends to be a bit lower under alternatives that give greater weight to top ranked programs. For example, a simple count of the number of programs ranked within the top ten nationally gives Minnesota an overall rank of 23. (Complete results of my analysis are available on the World Wide Web at
Individuals will differ in their evaluation of how dramatic the change has been. Some may argue that it isn't very big and others may be relieved that is was not greater. I am concerned about such complacency. If we are to reverse the decline that has occurred, we must recognize what has happened and resolve to take steps to reverse the slippage that has occurred. Complacency will only make future declines easier to accept and ignores the decline that has taken over a longer period of time.
While thoughtful legislators said that their only concern was to insure that tenure codes not be so rigid as to prohibit programmatic change, it was unclear whether legislators fully understood the importance of a strong tenure code as an essential element in defense of academic freedom. Guarantees of academic freedom represent a social compact with colleges and universities that as a society we will be stronger and better off in the long run by insuring the right and ability of scholars to engage in research and teaching free from external or internal threats and intimidation. Guarantees of academic freedom secured by a strong tenure code play a critical role when recruiting and retaining the very best scholars, individuals who work by its very nature is often finds itself in the midst of controversy and challenge. Threats to academic freedom are not idle concerns or things that happened only in the distant past.
I have a colleague, a Regents' Professor and distinguished scholar, who while a young scholar was subject to attempts at intimidation by a US Senator. She has a colleague who lost her job at another institution after a similar attack.
I have a colleague who's work on patents led a well known Minnesota company to try and bring pressure on the University to have him fired.
I have a colleague who came under personal and political attacks because of his views on NAFTA.
I have two colleagues who found their positions at the University threatened by a powerful state official after responding to a request from the state to help figure out how to deal with state deficits
I have colleagues associated with the Minnesota Twins Study who have told me that this is work they could not have embarked on without the protection provided by tenure.
Assertions that attacks on academic freedom are an issue of the past, ignore these and other examples as well as the role that a strong tenure code plays in discouraging such attacks.
It took a great deal of effort to establish these strong tenure codes to protect academic freedom in the face of significant political opposition. Faculty are naturally extremely sensitive to actions that have the potential to erode such hard won gains.
Return to the Table of Contents
The Importance of Tenure in Defense of Academic Freedom--
Craig Swan, University of Minnesota
There were at the legislature this winter important discussions of tenure at the University of Minnesota. Much of the discussion addressed the Academic Health Center at the University and the need for changes that reflect the changing realities of health care competition. There was a particular focus on the role of tenure in the case of faculty providing patient services.
Return to the Table of Contents
1995 - 96 Minnesota AAUP Chapter Officers:
Return to the Table of Contents