Seriously? Tenure is not just about politically unpopular opinions. Lots of people work in fields where their politics are irrelevant. Tenure allows you to pursue research without worrying about the market (whether economic or intellectual). For an engineer, that might mean studies of new materials with no immediate practical application. For an historian it might mean the study of an event that will not draw an immediately large readership. The freedom to express political views is a side benefit that’s largely unrelated to the job (for most people), and tenure is a professional institution related to the job.
I do not claim that tenure is justified by unpopular ideas. My post states that it is an unlikely justification.
I do not disagree with you.
Eyal Rozenbergsays:
In Israel, tenure has definitely allowed a significant number of academics to espouse views the government disapproves of. Some of them occasionally face calls for termination from students, public figures and even government ministers.
In the US, there are occasional examples of lack of tenure (or tenure being only pending rather than in effect) allowing for penalization of academics for controversial views, in cases such as those of Norman Finkelstein, Steven Salaita, and more recently Cornell West.
Still, a more fundamental point is that “tenure” is not a special privilege which should be justified. It is the ludicrous and outrageous default situation of “employment at will” which needs to be challenged for other workplaces.
My blog post does not advocate against tenure… merely against one common justification.
It seems that West had tenure at Princeton and other schools but was not considered for tenure at Harvard. So it seems unlikely that lack of tenure prevented West from speaking up. Even so, West is clearly someone with tenure who speaks up. It is also possible that West would speak up just as much without tenure. Nevertheless I would count him as a counter example to my blog post.
The other examples you provide, of people denied tenure because of their controversial views, are interesting but they do not go against the statement I make in my blog post and may in fact make it stronger. To get tenure in the first place, it seems helpful to show that you are not the kind of person who would advance controversial views, teach courses that your colleagues disapprove of or pursue research interest that may make you in trouble with the management of your school.
Of course, if you stay quiet for half a decade and get tenure then, in theory, you could now speak up. But that seems contrary to human nature. Furthermore there are strong forces that will entice you to stay quiet for the rest of your career.
Let me repeat that my blog post does not advocate for abolishing tenure.
Dulnoi Hamovyansays:
True, it is hard to find tenured faculty brave enough to express controversial ideas. One other example that falls in to my mind is that of Alessandro Strumia of the university of Pisa. He did not lose his job, but the media and public response got him suspended for a while. The power of the media and social media is huge, and thus people and tenured faculty members get more careful in what they say.
In addition i think that there is a mechanism, that uses your argument in reverse: Because tenured faculty theoretically has the freedom to express controversial idea’s, universities and hiring committees might select and filter for people with very conventional opinions that fit in the “old-boys” network well. In addition current way of education, and grading, mainly focuses on aspects of intelligence related to how well individuals can conform to their environment (“the system”), which could cause considerable selection bias.
Seriously? Tenure is not just about politically unpopular opinions. Lots of people work in fields where their politics are irrelevant. Tenure allows you to pursue research without worrying about the market (whether economic or intellectual). For an engineer, that might mean studies of new materials with no immediate practical application. For an historian it might mean the study of an event that will not draw an immediately large readership. The freedom to express political views is a side benefit that’s largely unrelated to the job (for most people), and tenure is a professional institution related to the job.
I do not claim that tenure is justified by unpopular ideas. My post states that it is an unlikely justification.
I do not disagree with you.
In Israel, tenure has definitely allowed a significant number of academics to espouse views the government disapproves of. Some of them occasionally face calls for termination from students, public figures and even government ministers.
In the US, there are occasional examples of lack of tenure (or tenure being only pending rather than in effect) allowing for penalization of academics for controversial views, in cases such as those of Norman Finkelstein, Steven Salaita, and more recently Cornell West.
Still, a more fundamental point is that “tenure” is not a special privilege which should be justified. It is the ludicrous and outrageous default situation of “employment at will” which needs to be challenged for other workplaces.
My blog post does not advocate against tenure… merely against one common justification.
It seems that West had tenure at Princeton and other schools but was not considered for tenure at Harvard. So it seems unlikely that lack of tenure prevented West from speaking up. Even so, West is clearly someone with tenure who speaks up. It is also possible that West would speak up just as much without tenure. Nevertheless I would count him as a counter example to my blog post.
The other examples you provide, of people denied tenure because of their controversial views, are interesting but they do not go against the statement I make in my blog post and may in fact make it stronger. To get tenure in the first place, it seems helpful to show that you are not the kind of person who would advance controversial views, teach courses that your colleagues disapprove of or pursue research interest that may make you in trouble with the management of your school.
Of course, if you stay quiet for half a decade and get tenure then, in theory, you could now speak up. But that seems contrary to human nature. Furthermore there are strong forces that will entice you to stay quiet for the rest of your career.
Let me repeat that my blog post does not advocate for abolishing tenure.
True, it is hard to find tenured faculty brave enough to express controversial ideas. One other example that falls in to my mind is that of Alessandro Strumia of the university of Pisa. He did not lose his job, but the media and public response got him suspended for a while. The power of the media and social media is huge, and thus people and tenured faculty members get more careful in what they say.
In addition i think that there is a mechanism, that uses your argument in reverse: Because tenured faculty theoretically has the freedom to express controversial idea’s, universities and hiring committees might select and filter for people with very conventional opinions that fit in the “old-boys” network well. In addition current way of education, and grading, mainly focuses on aspects of intelligence related to how well individuals can conform to their environment (“the system”), which could cause considerable selection bias.