This whole Ward Churchill situation has raised some interesting discussion about the professoriate and, specifically, about tenure and academic freedom.
Many have expressed on my blog (and elsewhere) a great deal of contempt and skepticism about the tenure system at American universities. While I will admit to being biased in favor of the tenure system, given that I am a beneficiary thereof and have worked for almost a decade and a half (if one includes grad school and my teaching career) to achieve that goal, I can understandably be in favor of the system.
However, I have given this a great deal of though to this issue and I remain unconvinced that there is a viable alternative to this system if we want to protect academic freedom. The only way to protect the free flow of ideas is to create an environment in which one cannot be dismissed for those ideas. The basic issue for me is that I don’t trust anyone to be the arbiter of what a “good” idea is versus a “bad” one. In whom should we vest this authority? The only means, in an open society, for determining a bad idea should be reasoned discourse and the application of reason. If arbitrary power is used to determine the value of an idea then the very concept of an open society has to be called into question.
Do we want honest discourse or not? Or do we only want to hear ideas that confirm our own beliefs? Surely we are all ultimately better off with a free and open exchange of ideas.
If professors believe that there is a chance that they can be fired for what they write and say, they will say and write less. Certainly they will shy away from anything that might create controversy (and this would be true not just in social sciences and related fields, but in the hard sciences as well).
For example: I have a column coming out in the Mobile Register this coming weekend in which I argue that a Roy Moore governorship would be bad for the state of Alabama (indeed, I think it would set the state back rather considerably). Now, this is likely to annoy a good number of Alabama taxpayers (Moore does have a 72% approval rating amongst Republicans in the state) and it is wholly possible that I will end up offending the man who will be governor of this state. Nonetheless I honestly believe that it is against the interest of the state to elect the man and wrote a column to that effect (and have blogged the fact and will likely state that fact in a number of public fora between now and next year). I see it as a public duty to express this opinion, not because I think that everyone should agree with me (although that would be nice, I suppose) but rather that because I view my role as a university professor and political analyst to share my views. I have what I think are analytically sound reasons for my position and clearly they aren’t partisan, per se, as it is pretty obvious to anyone who reads my blog that I vote predominantly for Republicans.
Am I failing to serve the taxpayers of Alabama if I am disagreeing with a large percentage of them? Should I only write that which is in conformity with general public opinion?
And, no, I never tell my students how to vote, nor would I ever grade anything based on the partisan view of a student.
Still, if I didn’t have tenure I would be an idiot to risk my job by publicly criticizing a potentially very powerful man. Do we really want a system in which people who are allegedly supposed to be thinking and talking about a host of issues are scared of the politiclly powerful?
So here’s the bottom line, in the form of a few questions:
1) Do we want a system in which the power to determine what thoughts and statements are “good” and what statements are “bad” is given to specific people? And, if so, who gets this power and why? Further, who then watches the watchmen? I honestly can’t understand why this wouldn’t be a frightening concept to all who value an open society.
2) Do we want a system in which a true, but controversial, idea if uttered or written can result in the firing of a professor?
3) Do we want a system in which professors have to worry about what powerful people think of them and their ideas?
To me, I can think of no reason to want any of these things, but then again, perhaps my readers disagree. And if one does find any of these possibilities to be troubling, can someone tell me about a better protection than the tenure system?
I again recommend the reading of J. S. Mill’s On Liberty.
Additionally: Calls for the diminution of certain rights almost always come as the result of some behavior that is sufficiently outside accepted norms that the general public finds the punishment of that behavior to be acceptable. However, such willingness to siphon rights tends to have the more important effect of enhancing the power of government. This is not a good trade off. I would rather let the Nazis march in Skokie than hae the government acquire the power determine which groups and causes are acceptable and which are not.
The only way to guarantee my basic rights to worship, speak, associate and so forth is to be willing to allow your rights to similarly be protected. If I am willing to surrend your rights to some arbitrary power, how long before my rights are the target of that same decision-maker?
Good post Steven.
One other misconception that people have about universities and the academy is that professors are not evaluated on performance.
At every university, faculty have to consistently do annual reports, which are usually evaluated by a peer committee, department chair, dean, and provost. Usually merit pay is tied to the evaluation of these reports, giving even tenured profs incentive to perform well.
Comment by Kappiy — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 11:13 am
Agreed all around. Of course, most of those arguments could be made for junior professors without tenure, too. Indeed, those are the guys most likely to need protection and the ones likeliest to be prolific writers/speakers.
Comment by James Joyner — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 11:15 am
It seems to me that the tenure system trades a protection against outside meddling for at least some degree of expected conformaty inside; to get tenure, you have to gain the approval of your colleagues–and I suspect for most professors, the threat of a governor or state legislator calling for their heads is significantly less than the threat from within.
Comment by Chris Lawrence — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 11:16 am
Technically one has academic freedom even if one doesn’t have tenure. Of course, one is still more prone to not believe that fact in the pre-tenure years than in the post-tenure ones.
There are clearly issues with those pre-tenure years, at least part of which cause the conformity issue that Chris notes.
It is hardly a perfect system–I am just not sure as to what alternative could be constructed.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 11:19 am
Tenure is required for the left and right of professors. My boss is from the left and I am generally from the right. I do not believe he holds this against me on the other hand having tenure gives me the right to say some things I could not say. Most importantly it allows me to be honest in class. Without tenure we might have to teach in a safe dishonest way–something I will never do.
Comment by Mark — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 12:05 pm
As someone who works at a school without tenure, I can attest to your hypothesis related to what would happen without tenure.
Comment by bryan — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 12:09 pm
Beltway Traffic Jam
The daily linkfest:
Steven Taylor explains, again, why tenure for university professors is a good idea.
Jeff Goldstein imagines Janeane Garofalo getting a letter with a Reagan stamp on it.
Kevin McGehee is begging for participants in his capti…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 3:06 pm
Yeah, I don’t know that there’s a better alternative to tenure (the other Churchill’s quote applies here); although, in self-interested terms, I at least wouldn’t have a bunch of people coming on campus to try to get the tenure-track job doing exactly what I do now.
Comment by Chris Lawrence — Thursday, February 10, 2024 @ 5:07 pm
[…] as nothing to do with public pressure. Setting aside the issue, for a moment of whether tenure is a good thing or not, I find Gingrich’s stance to be stunning. Yes, Ward Churchill ha […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » Gingrich on Churchill and Tenure — Friday, February 25, 2024 @ 8:07 pm