Changes needed to bring tenure system into modernity
Since the early 20th century, tenure has rewarded talented university faculty with the benefits of status, academic freedom, and lifetime job security. Tenure rests on the assumption that qualified faculty members are worth a lifelong investment, and will easily repay their costs. Indeed, advocates of tenure contend that the system frees academics to work without fear of censure, opening up innovative fields of research while enabling them to build long-term relationships with an institution. Yet in recent years, universities have begun to move away from the tenure track. Governing boards of some college systems have called for abolishing the tenure system altogether. Some critics charge that tenure causes intellectual stagnation among faculty members, and that lifetime jobs are unsustainable in a modern economy.
The reality is that tenure could be tweaked in order to address these concerns without being abolished wholesale. Certain reforms, such as increasing access to interdisciplinary work, instituting post-tenure evaluations, and building interaction between tenured professors and students, will markedly increase the appeal of the tenure system and its sustainability in the modern educational landscape. The tenure system may need a tune-up, then, but the underlying concept remains sound.
A Job for Life
At its best, tenure ensures academic freedom by shielding academics from the vagaries of popular opinion or the pressures of administrators. As Chad Aldeman, a policy analyst with Education Sector, a Washington D.C. think tank, told the HPR, “If [professors] do not have tenure, political forces could come after them for their stances and their teaching.” For example, tenure likely saved the appointment of John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, after Yoo came under scrutiny for his participation in forming the Bush administration’s legal justifications for torture.
Yet tenure’s benefits go beyond protecting controversial political opinions. Even in a non-ideological classroom, tenured and tenure-track professors offer significant benefits to their students. A recent study by Audrey Jaeger and Kevin Eagan found that freshmen taught by tenure-track professors are 30% more likely to return to college than those taught by adjunct professors. Such a divergence cannot merely be traced to the greater experience of tenured professors as compared with adjuncts. Indeed, the authors point out that they sought to control for all factors—particularly education and experience—except for that of tenure status. Whatever the mechanism, then, tenure seems to result in superior student outcomes.
An Outmoded System?
Despite tenure’s apparent benefits, however, opponents contend that the system leads to an outmoded academy through excessive faculty retention. Cathy Trower, director of the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, maintains that the tenure system stifles interdisciplinary work. “The tenure system was very good in its day, and it’s very disciplinary-focused,” she said. Nonetheless, Trower argues that today’s academic climate of cutting-edge, cooperative research compels professors to keep up with current practice, while tenure largely protects those whose best efforts lie in the past.
In particular, tenure’s critics point to the incompatibility between the need for fast-paced research and tenure’s more leisurely orientation. Trower alleged, “We now find ourselves making all sorts of accommodations and modifications to traditional tenure to make it fit with today’s workers and lifestyles.” The cost the university incurs in making a lifetime commitment to a faculty member leads Trower to conclude that “we’re trying to force- fit what I think is an outmoded employment system.”
The Great Tenure Debate
The debate over tenure epitomizes a larger ideological conflict over the extent to which America’s universities should be more flexible and responsive, or, in short, more businesslike. In his forthcoming book, The Future of Higher Education, Dan Clawson of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, argues that the past few decades have seen a general trend away from government intervention in the university, as private funding has replaced state appropriations. “Today,” Clawson told the HPR, “the alternative framework is that universities should be like businesses.” Clawson claims that reductions in the number of tenured faculty exemplify a trend toward a more free-market attitude in education. Trower points out that such reductions enjoy a certain logic. “Making a lifetime commitment to somebody is enormously expensive,” she said. “You’re talking millions and millions of dollars over the course of their career.” By decreasing the number of tenure-track faculty, university administrators hope to make a dent in the skyrocketing costs of university education.
Still, budget issues are not the only piece of the equation. Clawson worries that excessive focus on cost- efficiency could chill the intellectual climate of many universities. “What kind of institution do you want to build?” he asked. “Do you want to build one like Wal-Mart, where the aim is to get everything at the cheapest price? Or do you want to build an institution around a set of people who are well-paid and have security, and who think about what is best for the university in the long run?” Yet with two out of three faculty members nationwide teaching part- time or in an adjunct capacity, the pendulum appears to be swinging away from Clawson’s preference for a more grounded, invested faculty.
Tenure 2.0
Even if Clawson wins the argument over tenure, however, the current model is unlikely to remain precisely the same. To start with, universities across the nation may adopt systems of post-tenure evaluation. Proponents argue that this initiative would allow for the review of professors’ research and teaching performance even after they receive tenure. Tenured faculty would still enjoy protections and benefits, as long as they do not repeatedly fail to meet department standards, but post-tenure evaluations would encourage faculty to remain creative, innovative, and competitive.
Tenure systems also could adapt more readily to the growth of interdisciplinary academic work. Trower complained that the current tenure system “doesn’t do a good job rewarding or promoting interdisciplinary research,” because pre-tenure evaluations often take place within departments. Trower maintains that academic departments should not force an interdisciplinary scholar to satisfy two department review boards with differing standards. Instead, universities should seek to standardize rules on tenure and promotion and decrease the difficulties that interdisciplinary scholars face in dealing with the tenure process.
Though increasingly under fire, tenure in higher education is not entirely outmoded. Data show that tenure and the stability it provides contribute to a culture of learning. Nonetheless, changes must be introduced to keep the institution relevant and modern, a benefit not just to professors but to universities and students as well.
Eric Hendey ‘14 and Simon Thompson ‘14 are Contributing Writers.