COLUMN: Tenure necessary for meaningful research
I am prompted to write this in response to an article in the Dec. 9, 2011, edition of The Statesman. My picture was on the front page along with a very poor and misleading article concerning tenure. None of my positions on this issue were included in the article.
First, let me state that I am a very strong proponent of tenure. It is critical in today’s world to protect teachers who may have controversial or not very popular positions on the issues of the day. That is why tenure was instituted in the first place.
In today’s polarized society, a Marxist sociologist at the University of Utah might come under pressure from the state Legislature demanding his or her resignation. A Keynesian economist at USU might have difficulty in the economics department. A liberal political science professor might face severe pressures from Tea Party types demanding that “that Socialist” professor be dismissed.
Early in my own career, I came across this type of social pressure. In 1963, I had a conversation with Utah Congressman Lawrence Burton, R, who had been a professor at Weber State. He told me he was approached by a group of Utah citizens demanding that he “do something” about the Communist professor in the political science department at USU. The professor in question had written a book on the history of political thought that included a chapter on Marxism. The group, therefore, believed that the professor was a Communist, which was very far from the truth as he was quite conservative in his own views. Congressman Burton did nothing to interfere in this case. This example illustrates why tenure needs to be continued to protect the openness of the university and the ability to expose students to a variety of ideas — not just the currently acceptable ones.
The second reason why tenure is critical to the mission of the university is that most of the great teaching, important research and community service are all carried out by tenured faculty. Without the protection of tenure, some cutting-edge research might not be accomplished and controversial ideas might not be presented to students. The work of the university would be hindered by individuals and/or groups who might disagree with these activities and orientations. There are those who oppose climate change research, coyote research, genetic research and cloning, etc. Could this important research be done without the protection from outside influence and interference without tenure? I doubt it.
In my own case, my best teaching, my most important research and publications, and some of my best community service all occurred after I received tenure. My five Fulbright Lectureships to Latin America also occurred after I was tenured. I believe that this is the case for most of the faculties at Utah’s universities.
Another reason to defend tenure is that higher education is not local but is national and global.
Institutions without tenure could not compete for the “best and the brightest” faculty without the job protection of tenure. USU, for example, would devolve from a university to a type of community college. This would be a disaster for the students and for the state of Utah.
Students in the article of Dec. 9 blamed poor advising and poor teaching on tenure. They were incorrect. There might be poor teaching and poor advising, but tenure cannot be blamed for an individual’s choices to not do their job the best that they can. There has always been a process for disciplining tenured faculty. Tenured faculty can and, in some cases, should be dismissed for cause. So if someone is not meeting their job requirements, following due process, department heads, deans and the provost can take action to remedy the situation. Continuing the use of tenure is critical for the survival of the university.