2008 Woodie Awards
To the Editor of The Paw Print:
Issue date: 4/18/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
We're writing in response to Michael Brady's article on March 7 entitled "Tenure: Once Saving Grace, Now a Drag." We think that tenure and academic freedom are often misunderstood, especially by those outside of education. Mr. Brady's article perpetuates the misconception that tenure is about protecting faculty members. He sees it as the "problem with the tenure system" while readily acknowledging that in his opinion, a minority of faculty members "fade away, kick back and quite literally let the years pass."
Tenure is not about protecting individuals. Tenure is about protecting academic freedom. The American Association of University Professors, the AAUP, has this statement on its web site (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issuesed/AF/): "Academic freedom is the indispensable quality of institutions of higher education. As the AAUP's core policy statement argues, 'Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition' (1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure)."
Faculty members trade economic gain for a measure of stability. It is understood that academics consider tenure as a benefit; without tenure, universities might have to pay higher salaries to retain full-time faculty. In many ways, achieving tenure is comparable to "making partner" in law or accounting firms. No one sees making partner as a career barrier; no one questions that a law partner or a partner in an accounting firm has a guaranteed job. Why has it become fashionable to question the tenure of professors?
Those of us who expect to spend most, if not all, of our working lives at a university have every incentive to invest our time and energy in making it a vibrant and vital place to work and learn. With our protection to stand up for what we believe is right, we are able to offer our students an indispensable lesson about living in a democracy. Administrators come and go, but faculty members are here for the "long haul." We provide an "institutional memory" that can be short in an environment of employee turnover.
Mr. Brady's final paragraphs speak to the importance of protecting academic freedom. We do not share his faith in legislation to protect faculty from being fired for exercising their rights; the Enron debacle has shown us that legislation, while necessary, is far from sufficient in protecting workers.
Rather than arguing for the removal of tenure, why not suggest that tenure should be provided for all employees of every organization? Imagine a world in which dissent is encouraged, in which dialogue across different points of view is not only possible but necessary, in which we all learn from each other and each other's different opinions. Isn't that the kind of world one would want to work in and to live in? Why wouldn't we want the universities in which we work and study to strive to be models of such a world?
Yours,
Constance A. Knapp, Professor, Information Systems Department
Joseph F. Ryan, Professor and Chair, Department of Criminal Justice and Sociology
Tenure is not about protecting individuals. Tenure is about protecting academic freedom. The American Association of University Professors, the AAUP, has this statement on its web site (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issuesed/AF/): "Academic freedom is the indispensable quality of institutions of higher education. As the AAUP's core policy statement argues, 'Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition' (1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure)."
Faculty members trade economic gain for a measure of stability. It is understood that academics consider tenure as a benefit; without tenure, universities might have to pay higher salaries to retain full-time faculty. In many ways, achieving tenure is comparable to "making partner" in law or accounting firms. No one sees making partner as a career barrier; no one questions that a law partner or a partner in an accounting firm has a guaranteed job. Why has it become fashionable to question the tenure of professors?
Those of us who expect to spend most, if not all, of our working lives at a university have every incentive to invest our time and energy in making it a vibrant and vital place to work and learn. With our protection to stand up for what we believe is right, we are able to offer our students an indispensable lesson about living in a democracy. Administrators come and go, but faculty members are here for the "long haul." We provide an "institutional memory" that can be short in an environment of employee turnover.
Mr. Brady's final paragraphs speak to the importance of protecting academic freedom. We do not share his faith in legislation to protect faculty from being fired for exercising their rights; the Enron debacle has shown us that legislation, while necessary, is far from sufficient in protecting workers.
Rather than arguing for the removal of tenure, why not suggest that tenure should be provided for all employees of every organization? Imagine a world in which dissent is encouraged, in which dialogue across different points of view is not only possible but necessary, in which we all learn from each other and each other's different opinions. Isn't that the kind of world one would want to work in and to live in? Why wouldn't we want the universities in which we work and study to strive to be models of such a world?
Yours,
Constance A. Knapp, Professor, Information Systems Department
Joseph F. Ryan, Professor and Chair, Department of Criminal Justice and Sociology
Be the first to comment on this story