Tenure: More than lazy profs getting paid
By Shurid Sen
At a time in which it is rhetorically chic to speak of the virtues of freedom, it is both perplexing and hypocritical that the institution of tenure, one that protects academic freedom, is in question. There exists a perception that tenure is nothing more than an invitation for a professor to play "Minesweeper" at his or her desk all day. However, relegating the idea of tenure as a tool to help lazy professors pay their bills is a gross oversimplification.
Tenure was initially adopted at the turn of the 20th century to protect professors from social pressure and political turmoil, and more specifically administrators who disliked the views espoused by faculty. The idea was that, in order to foster academic research and the free flow of ideas, professors must be allowed to express their views without fear of reprisal for simply holding an unpopular opinion.
Remember, at one time, it was blasphemous to say that the Earth rotated around the sun - the idea was only accepted 150 years after Copernicus proposed it. At one time, the foremost political thinkers in the nation agreed that a black slave should be counted as three-fifths of a human. In hindsight, these ideas are preposterous, but they were regarded as irrefutable truths until challenged by tenacious thinkers who questioned the "truth." Tenure protects the ability to question, the most critical component to learning.
Detractors will say that views espoused by the likes of tenured University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill are dangerous, and that such professors should be removed. However, it would be far preferable to see the ideas of Churchill criticized and dismantled in the open, and risk the existence of the occasional lazy tenured professor, if it means preventing the preservation of modern-day equivalents of the flat-earth theory.
The right to tenure is not easily attained. It requires hard work and talent over the course of an educational career. After one becomes a professor, it takes years of publication and visible research to gain respect within one's field. Two-, four- and six-year peer reviews help to validate a researcher's credibility. Viewing tenure, the pinnacle of academia, as the refuge of lazy professors ignores the countless years of dedication required to attain it.
Focusing on the idea that tenure is a playground for Ph.D.s is absurd, and leads to a superficial analysis of the subject. The primary issue here is the preservation of academic freedom. The ability of a tenured faculty member to spur the development of new, sometimes controversial ideas is crucial to the expansion of knowledge, which should unquestionably be the goal of any university.
Shurid Sen is a political science and economics junior and can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Academics need to rethink tenure
Janne Perona
Tenure. We have all seen it at its worst: the one professor who just shouldn't be teaching. He's senile, unintelligible or just plain mean. In any case, tenure is the reason he's still around.
The idea of tenure is simple: Instructors attain job security after being employed for a predetermined time and successful completion of the tenure process. But the adverse effect of tenure is just as simple: Instructors stay with the university long after their effectiveness has worn out.
It's not that job security is bad; we all want the peace of mind that comes with knowing we won't be fired arbitrarily. But at the same time, serious problems arise from the implementation of tenure.
Currently, the tenure process involves several steps: presentation of a curriculum vitae, perusal of the candidate's workload, letters from outside evaluators, an evaluation of teaching and a barrage of other obstacles.
However, once you're in, you're in. According to the Web site of the UA vice provost for academic affairs, a candidate cannot lose tenure except in the case of retirement, resignation, dismissal for just cause or termination for budgetary reasons or for educational policy change.
This means that, except in rare cases of "just cause" or a budget change, a candidate must elect to leave his or her post. It's not difficult to see that this presents serious problems.
"Many professors, once they get tenure, just don't care anymore," said Jesse Cornia, a criminal justice administration sophomore. "They only care about their research or job security, and teaching is just a side thing for them."
While the UA is a top-rated research institution, it is first and foremost an institution of higher education. Teaching needs to be the primary priority for the professors here, and tenure sometimes undermines that priority.
Of course, abolishing tenure altogether would be ludicrous. However, marginal changes could be made to the process of post-tenure review already in place at the UA to make it more effective.
R. Daniel Shaw, a professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., and a UA alumnus, was on the board that created Fuller's tenure review process 10 years ago.
"(At Fuller), tenure does not allow one to rest on their laurels and coast," he said. "Every three years is almost like a ticking time bomb in that if you do not pass muster, you could find yourself being shown the door. This of course keeps one on the proverbial toes and maintains integrity."
Post-tenure review, as it exists now, is flawed. Student feedback, the best indicator of a professor's effectiveness as a teacher, is not taken into account during the process. In order for the review to reflect student concerns, evaluations such as those conducted by ASUA every semester should be considered.
Tenure is a great institution and is necessary for job security and academic freedom. But when it is abused, changes need to be made, and a revised tenure review process could be just the ticket.
Janne Perona is a criminal justice administration sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.