There is rarely an article published in the popular media these days 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 anachronisms of the past. Tenure is portrayed as something which has little relevance in 'today's society.'
Sadly, the authors almost never bother to fullfill a fundamental journalism principal of providing an accurate, informed basis from which readers may understand the issues. In particular, the authors seem to neither explore nor explain the true meaning of tenure.
What is tenure?
Tenure is not a 'contract for life', although it has unfortunately become a common interpretation of the term. Tenure simply means a commitment to due process. It is a protection against a capricious dismissal. Tenure isn't something which allows academics to hide from reality with a job for life. Tenure is something which should be a basic tennet of all employment for everyone. Why should anyone in any job be denied the courtesy of an honest explanation for their termination? To do any less would be construed as a Napoleonic affront within our legal system.
A tenured faculty member can ALWAYS be terminated for cause - after a due process hearing. Faculty have perhaps been squeamish about reiterating this fact to the public. 'Cause' includes the same reasons for terminating employment of anyone in any job, including dereliction of duty and incompetence. In addition, at most institutions, a tenured faculty can generally be terminated for 1) financial exigency (downsizing), or 2) elimination of a program or department (spin-offs).
But 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, most institutions do not have a policy to deal with these situations. The 'collateral' fallout at the University of Minnesota clearly illustrates the importance of the omission. Rather than deal with the implications to the University of changing health care needs within our society, critics have taken the opportunity to assault tenure across all educational institutions.
But is it 'tenure' that is broken, or just an implementation of 'tenure' at the University of Minnesota (and many other institutions) that is perhaps unrealistic in today's society? The previously unforseen circumstances call for some modification of tenure understandings - but they do not remove the original purpose of tenure, namely the protection of academic freedom.
What is the connection to academic freedom? It, too, is poorly understood. 'Academic freedom' is not - as critics sometimes charge - the freedom to slander and defame, but rather academic freedom is the freedom to openly question and search for better understanding. It would have been academic freedom which would have allowed Galileo to continue his revolutionary (some said heretical) research in astronomy rather to to recant his findings in favor of a politically favored position.
The purpose of tenure is simply to provide a mechanism to determine whether a proposed termination is due to 'valid' reasons, such as financial exigency, dereliction of duties, incompetence, or other justifiable reasons for dismissal, or rather is in retaliation for an unpopular opinion or direction of research. Tenure is the protection academia has relied upon to foster non-politicizied inquiry. Critics of tenure would have us believe this is a paranoid barrier to change. Yet examples abound - 'even' in Minnesota - which make the concerns clear, not just as anecdotes from the McCarthy era, but as something real in our time.
I think the real threat to education 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 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.'
It is time to be honest about the two issues, and to address them squarely. Tenure implementations should be reviewed, just as any other employment agreement should be regularly reviewed. But the evidence is just as compelling in the 1990's as in Galileo's time that academic freedom and its protection are important and need to be retained.
In just as honest a manner we must clearly acknowledge the problem in education isn't 'tenure', but diminished funding and the need for institutions to creatively reorient to changes in societal needs. For the academe to not acknowledge this reality and work to appropriately modify tenure codes would be an abuse of our part of the covenent. Yet the other side of the covenent is that society must honestly partake in the appropriate investment in its future generations if we are to truly maintain one of the world's best performing economies and strongest democratic republic.
Joseph L. Kreitzer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Economics
University of St. Thomas
President, Minnesota Conference of the AAUP