I have some concerns with tenure. For those of you unfamiliar with the tenure process at American universities, let me give you some background. Professors are expected to teach, provide service (to their department, school, university, and/or community), and perform research. The importance of these three factors depends upon the college or university. At pure teaching schools, very little emphasis is placed on research (just enough to keep the accreditation folks happy). At the other end of the spectrum, pure research schools only care about the quality of a professor's research (despite public statements about caring about their students, so long a professor is doing important research – and bringing money and/or prestige to the university, these schools do not consider teaching effectiveness when rewarding professors). Most schools fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

Tenure-track professors are hired and given several years to show results. After a certain amount of time, usually three years, the professor is evaluated. Depending upon the evaluation, he is faced with three outcomes. His contract is not renewed (most Americans would say he was fired), his evaluation term was extended (usually for another three years), or he was promoted to associate professor and given tenure.

Tenure is the mother-lode for professors. A professor with tenure may only be fired for doing something newsworthy (such as killing a student). Even if a professor ceases doing any research and only does an adequate job teaching, he has a guaranteed job until he retires. Tenure has its problems. For instance, it protects lazy professors. One would expect good professors would not need this protection since administrators would want to retain qualified, competent, and hard-working professors.

However, today I am reminded why tenure was established. It was to protect professors who exercise their rights to free speech. Professors who pursue research that goes against accepted practice would be fired at many universities if they did not have tenure. Despite their reputations for objectivity, scientists are a very close-minded community with a rigid belief system. They are very open to ideas within their belief system, but any idea that challenges accepted knowledge is usually treated with contempt and faces major hurdles to even be published. (This is why most non-tenured professors rarely challenge the status-quo; not only do they not have the protection of tenure, they will not get published which reduces their chances of ever receiving tenure). Barry Marshall is an example of someone who managed to overcome these hurdles, but for every Marshall who succeeds, many more fail.

Tenure not only protects scientific research, but political free speech. This is also a good thing. One of my favorite writers, Mike Adams, would have long been fired were it not for the protection of tenure. His recent column, Redheaded Woodpeckers, if written by any non-tenured professor, would spell the end of that professor's career. In these politically correct days, the advantages of tenured faculty feeling free to pursue their own research and to speak out outweigh the disadvantages of carrying some dead weight.

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):