This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Oct. 2, 2012 - Those who critique the failings of central city school systems often cite tenure as a major stumbling block to reform. In St. Louis, teachers could be tenured after three years on the job. Principals could be locked in after five years. Getting tenure carries a special cachet: The recipient cannot be terminated except in extreme financial exigency or for serious character failing.
Several questions have been raised about tenure: Is the provision of tenure weighed heavily or is it pro forma? Do special friendships affect granting tenure? Most important, what happens if teaching qualities deteriorate over time or if principals are no longer able to set direction and motivate? Given that school reform means change, will those protected by tenure be willing to adapt their methodology and curriculum?
Higher education is in a more secure place than central city school systems. And there are considerable differences in quality and emphasis among America’s colleges and universities. But they grant tenure.
Just over half of those teaching in institutions of higher education have tenure. Those hired as tenure-track assistant professors devote at least five years to the process of becoming tenured. The quality of their research, teaching and service (to department, university and community) is evaluated by colleagues in their department, assisted by outside letters from scholars at other schools, then by colleagues in the university. Depending on the university, research may be the most heavily weighted. The University of Alabama Press once distributed a T-shirt that said “Publish or Perish.” That summed it up for many of us.
The movement toward tenure in higher education began to develop in the United States in the 19th century. Professors at religious-based institutions feared retribution on religious grounds. The turn of the 20th century saw the professionalization of occupations. In its first decade, the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association debuted. Professions would become tied to specialized university training and professionals, e.g., doctors, would control entry to the field. These and many other associations set standards, created hierarchies and became quite powerful in their domain.
It is Interesting that, before 1910, the American Political Science Association formed. It was part of the trend; and tenuring political scientists and other academics is analogous to controlling entry to the profession. As the century progressed, the granting of tenure took on additional meaning. It freed academics to pursue research topics of their choosing, despite the probable duration, and it ensured freedom of speech or “academic freedom” as it is more often called. The Red Scare of the 1950s and the activities of Sen. Joseph McCarthy cost some academics their positions (and affected some in elementary and secondary education as well).
Today, some are calling for changes in tenure in higher education. The provost at Saint Louis University proposed ending that school’s tenure arrangements, which are typical of the genre. He suggested a re-examination of each scholar every six years, analogous to the tenure process. Needless to say, the faculty did not accept this proposed change graciously and warned of its effects on recruitment and retention. The proposal was removed from the agenda. However, SLU is not alone. The president of Ohio State University, Gordon Gee, also sees the need for change. He says he dislikes the emphasis on publication at the expense of teaching, but he has not yet offered a replacement for the tenure process.
Perhaps, as in the public schools, tenure locks in people whose performance falls below par. But such failure affects salary increases, which are most often based on individual evaluation. A tenured faculty may not be malleable to changing times and demands for new programs. Yet, tenure enables academic freedom.
The conundrum is affected by the fiscal malaise generally associated with public universities and made particularly egregious by our Great Recession. Straitened resources and the competition among departments for those resources, lead to fights over allocation of new hires. In addition, many positions remain vacant when incumbents retire or move to other schools. Money can be saved by hiring adjuncts at a pittance of what professors earn. And adjuncts have no claim on tenure whatsoever.
Economics and need for reform are challenging tenure at all levels of education. At this writing, change appears more likely in elementary and secondary schooling. But higher education will see greater debate about professorial tenure as well. Whether freedom or license becomes the key issue will determine the result. Many who have achieved tenure would work against its eradication.