Search Career Advice


Browse Archives

Career Advice

What I Wish I'd Known About Tenure

March 27, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

What is tenure and what should you know about the tenure process when starting an academic career?

A dictionary definition of tenure is “permanence of position”; however, that simplistic defintion neglects many facets of tenure and the tenure process. Tenure is an individual accomplishment that can be all consuming and absorbing twenty-four-seven for the first decade or two of an academic career. Tenure is also like gambling in a casino or joining a fraternity, and a tenure case is like a hunk of Swiss cheese, as I’ll explain below. Here are nine facets of tenure and the tenure process, including potential pitfalls and suggestions for success that I wish I’d known when I started as a mechanical engineering assistant professor.

1. Striving for tenure at a university is like gambling in a casino; the house sets the rules and controls the odds. From a university’s point of view, the granting of tenure is an enormous commitment. If one assumes that a newly tenured professor will work at the university for 30 years with an average salary and benefits of $100,000, granting tenure is a $3 million commitment, a substantial obligation for any institution to assume. Therefore, to protect the institution, university tenure guidelines include phrases stating that the granting of tenure shall occur when it is in the best interest of the university. Tenure is based on the university’s needs, not the achievements of those seeking tenure, and the university sets the rules and controls the odds. Changing budgets and administrations vary the standards for those receiving tenure over time, making comparisons with earlier cases potentially dangerous to current tenure candidates.

2. Becoming tenured is like joining a fraternity. When one embarks on an academic career, he or she is trying to become an accepted and permanent member of an academic department. This process is analogous to joining a social fraternity or society leading some to say that the tenure process is a form of academic hazing. When integrating into a group, the more you have in common with existing members, the easier the integration process. Likewise, when you differ from current members, establishing relationships can be more difficult, creating potential challenges for new faculty members from underrepresented groups. Another key factor in joining a fraternity is that having an advocate or champion can be instrumental to the outcome. Among the many roles a champion for a new faculty member can play are helping them build a research program, introducing them to important professional and funding agency contacts, guiding them on course selection and teaching methods, providing insight into departmental dynamics, and representing the new faculty member favorably to other departmental members. New faculty members need to proactively build professional relationships with the established members of the department and seek advocates and champions among them. Your chances of success may also improve if you do not get mired in departmental politics or have major conflicts with powerful departmental members.

3. A tenure case is like a hunk of Swiss cheese. A new faculty member is expected to excel at research, teaching and service. These three broad categories encompass a multitude of activities including procuring grants; performing leading edge research; advising graduate students; publishing in preeminent journals; presenting at national and international conferences; teaching graduate and undergraduate courses; advising undergraduate students; serving on departmental, college, and university committees; serving on professional society and conference organizing committees; reviewing; etc. Due to the myriad of activities that faculty members perform, the final tenure case is like a hunk of Swiss cheese with areas of strength (cheese) and of weakness (holes). A new faculty member’s responsibility is to ensure that the hunk of cheese has as much cheese as possible; however, eliminating all the holes is practically impossible. Thus, it is important to present a tenure case so that others see the cheese and not the holes. In addition to working hard, new faculty members need to self promote in a positive way and inform the members of their department of their successes and major accomplishments. Brag! The Art of Tooting Your Own Horn Without Blowing It, a book by Peggy Klaus, offers suggestions for effective self promotion. Additionally, maintaining an updated Web site is a good way to inform others of your achievements, especially when external letters are being sought. Having champions provides additional avenues to publicize your accomplishments. By adroitly packaging and promoting your achievements, the focus will be on the cheese of your tenure case.

4. The majority of those embarking on an academic career will end up with tenure cases in the gray zone. A small percentage of those pursuing tenure will not be able to address a fatal flaw -- for example, no funding or publishing, abysmal teaching, etc. -- and will not be able to succeed. On the other extreme are those who are exceptional across the board -- tremendous research and funding, large number of articles published, teaching award recognition, national awards, etc. -- and their tenure cases will be almost impossible to derail. However, the majority of those beginning tenure-track positions will end up in the gray or middle zone, and the outcome will depend on local departmental and university conditions. To determine the likelihood of success for your tenure case, actively and persistently seek honest and constructive feedback from department leaders. If the decision of a tenure case comes as a surprise, there are faults on the department’s as well as the candidate’s part.

5. Just as there are risk factors for contracting a disease, risk factors exist for not obtaining tenure. Among the risk factors for heart disease are hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, and family history. The more risk factors an individual has, the more likely that he or she will develop heart disease. Likewise, risk factors for having an unsuccessful tenure case include those that 1) slow your being successful in your career and 2) inhibit your integration into the department. Examples of the former include: starting the position immediately after graduate school instead of after a postdoctoral position, not receiving key resources such as laboratory space in a timely fashion, being assigned high teaching loads early in your career, being in a field with limited funding opportunities during the beginning of your tenure clock, needing to build significant experimental infrastructure prior to obtaining research results, and having significant family commitments. Characteristics that differentiate you from the majority of the department may complicate your integration and include gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and political beliefs. Another risk factor of this type is being in a multidisciplinary field or one with which the majority of the department is unfamiliar. While having risk factors does not automatically lead to lack of success for tenure, the more risk factors confronting an individual, the higher the barrier to jump. It is important to evaluate your own situation and mitigate your risk factors to the extent possible.

6. True tenure is always being able to obtain another position. While being granted tenure at an institution does make it very difficult, but not impossible, to be fired and is a form of career security, job satisfaction and happiness are not guaranteed. A change in administration, funding priorities, or departmental reorganization may result in a position that one formerly enjoyed becoming unbearable, leading one to desire a new position. Thus, true tenure or “permanence of position” throughout a career is one’s ability to secure another position when desired. It is therefore important to keep options open and available even when your career is progressing well at your current institution. The best way to ensure career options is building and maintaining internal and external networks of professional colleagues on whom you can call when embarking upon a job search. Having a strong network serves two purposes for those at the beginning of an academic career: 1) recognition by potential letter writers for a tenure dossier and 2) contacts for a job search if desired. There are many ways to create a strong network, including joining and participating in professional societies, attending conferences, seeking opportunities to present seminars at other institutions, inviting and hosting colleagues in your field for visits at your institution, maintaining contact with classmates from undergraduate and graduate studies, etc.

7. The best type of tenure is that which matches your ideals and values. You will need to make decisions regarding your priorities and how to allocate your time among the various duties of a professor. Conflicts can arise between the course of action you would prefer and the action you believe is most likely to lead to success. At a research institution, an example of such a conflict may be between spending significant amounts of time working with a student struggling in your course or minimizing time with the student to write a research proposal. If you make the choices that are true to yourself and your values and are granted tenure, you have a great outcome and a good match between yourself and your institution. If, on the other hand, you have to sell your soul and are granted tenure, the expectations of your institution will not change after you receive tenure. You will continue to experience conflict between how you would like to be as a professor and what you need to do to be recognized and successful at your institution. A better course of action may be to search for an institution that better matches you and your priorities. Another option is to receive tenure and try to reform your department, but this can be very tough, endlessly frustrating, or even impossible depending on the institution and circumstances. When interviewing and deciding upon an academic position, look for a match between your values and the institutional rewards, as that will lead to the most success and career happiness.

8. Fight or flight decisions are part of the tenure process. During the tenure process, decisions regarding the future are made by both the institution and individual. The department, college and university are deciding whether an assistant professor is an asset to their institution. A candidate for tenure is deciding whether or not the institution is the right place for his or her career. The optimal situation is when the institution and environment are the right fit for the individual and he or she is perceived as being a strong contributor. There can be cases in which a tenure process is proceeding well, but the fit is not optimal, leading the professor to look elsewhere. Alternatively, if an assistant professor is perceived as not doing well or at risk in the gray zone, the professor faces the choices of fight or flight. How much time and energy will he or she dedicate to working in a non-ideal department, possibly appealing an institutional tenure decision, as opposed to looking for a new position? This decision is very difficult and individualized, and no right answer exists. Contesting a tenure decision is usually a long, strenuous and expensive process with a series of internal procedures that may then be followed by outside litigation. Tenure Denied: Cases of Sex Discrimination in Academia describes tenure cases that were contested with the support of the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund and illuminates challenges and difficulties in fighting tenure decisions. While perhaps necessary, the flight option is also not easy, as it can be difficult to search for a position in the midst of a tenure dispute. If frank and honest feedback has been provided, an individual can choose to search for a new position in the third or fourth year, avoiding the assumption that the tenure process is not going well when one looks in the fifth or sixth year. An advantage to writing letters of appeal as well as looking for a new position is that it requires specifying your strengths which are the items to be stressed when seeking a new position. Be prepared for potentially difficult decisions during the tenure process and weigh your options carefully.

9. While important, tenure is only one facet in life. The beginning of an academic career is very difficult for everyone and involves a lot of hard work. Academic reward structures are such that devoting more and more time to work is recognized. There is always one more proposal to submit, paper to write, more time to spend on class preparation, another meeting, student to advise, etc. But it is also necessary to achieve a degree of balance between work and personal life so that your efforts in both are sustainable. There are professors who have received tenure and a divorce in the same year. Take time during the beginning of an academic career to build and maintain a personal support structure. Remember that family and friends love and care for you regardless of the outcome in your tenure case.

The beginning of an academic career is an exciting time that brings the major challenge of charting a course through the tenure process. Every tenure candidate brings individual strengths and weaknesses to his or her position and makes many decisions and choices as an assistant professor. You need to play the hand you are dealt to the best of your ability at your university, and no single path for success will work for all. I believe that one can pursue tenure in such a way that he or she emerges from the process in a better place regardless of the tenure decision at a particular institution. Congratulations to tenure candidates on the path to success at their current institutions, and for those in less optimal circumstances, consider the options available to you and continue your journey toward a position matching your passions.

****

Acknowledgements: I gratefully express appreciation to those who have supported me in my career and writing this essay including Mary Alice, Hart, Ruth, Elisa, Ed, Debbie, Jamie, Jennifer, Dan, Nancy, Kristin, and Nesreen.

Leslie M. Phinney was an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from 1997 until 2003. She received a National Science Foundation CAREER Award from 2000-2004 and a 2000 NASA/ASEE Faculty Fellowship at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories. She is now a principal member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, N.M.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on What I Wish I'd Known About Tenure

  • The Elephant in the Room
  • Posted by Gordon Ph.D. , unhired and untenured at None on March 27, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • This, I'm sure, was a sincere and heartfelt account of riding the unruly waves of Academia. What I found interesting was that the authoer did not talk about the most obvious problem - being a woman in a male dominated field at a time when the boys did not want to play with the girls and did not play nice. I dated, very briefly, a professor of mathematics who did her doctorate at MIT and her life was a living hell - both at graduate school and beyond. This is not to presume that all women were treated badly by their confreres twenty years ago - but the essay reads like the Ladies home Journal version of the author's experiences in the trenches.

  • Posted by John on March 27, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • She mentions gender under item #5...maybe not to the extent Gordon Ph.D. thinks is warranted, but it's not the case that she "didn't talk about" it.

  • unqualified
  • Posted by prof on March 27, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Interesting piece. Would like to have seen more on the not insignificant # of faculty who serve on tenure committees (or who play an important role in evaluating "junior" colleagues) who (a) have no idea how to evaluate someone and have no relevant (and necessary) training; and (b) are weak teachers/researchers themselves. The author's most cogent point is the frat initiation analogy. Often the tenure process is little more than a glorified popularity contest. A broken system.

  • politics and popularity
  • Posted by Michelle , Teacher - special ed. at public schools - K-12 on March 28, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • yes - great comment - tenure does seem like it's no more than a popularity contest - politics and double standards from what I've experienced - who needs it - time to move on - the right job will come at the right time - time for a change

  • Posted on March 28, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • I found this article to be one of the best, in terms of being concise, inclusive and well-balanced, that I've ever read on the subject; especially in regard to the impressive (amazing?) spectrum of issues, academic and personal, which are (all too often) a part of the process.  As someone who has been tenured in his present job for over fifteen years, and who benefited from a pre-decision "flight" choice in a previous position, I found the comments about "goodness of fit" to be especially insightful.  The fraternity analogy is also right on the money.  It's the rare individual who is valued because he/she is "different."  

    While the article seemed to center around experiences at a research institution, the process isn't much different at four-year teaching colleges, even those which euphemistically call themselves "Universities."  Here there is much less of a research component, in some ways a good thing, but this only makes the process even more subject to the vagaries of raw (and biased) opinion - consult the controversy over student teaching evaluations to see what I mean.

    The icing on the cake is that the process seems to be evolving in a troubling direction: more formal requirements which are more stringently applied - at every level, from hiring to post-tenure promotion.  From where I sit at least, the fact that I had to endure a more critical process than the good-old-boys that hired me, and that those hired since have had to jump through even more hoops, hasn't made much difference in quality. We have a more diverse faculty (a decidedly good thing), but the intended transformation to the "Harvard" of my region has yet to occur.  Human nature being what it is the tenuring process isn't likely to become any more rational and  clear-cut, nor any less confusing and stressful, anytime soon. One of many reason's I've tried to encourage my college-aged children (daughters) to apply their prodigious talents elsewhere.

  • show me the money
  • Posted on March 28, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • " . . . a newly tenured professor will work at the university for 30 years with an average salary and benefits of $100,000"

    Perhaps this is the case at well-heeled R1 institutions, but 100G hardly represents average salary/benefits for most tenured faculty at most U. S. colleges and universities.

  • Going "All In" on Tenure and Promotion
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 29, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Having once been one, I know that assistant professors often develop a certain paranoia about the tenure process. For the most part, however, that paranoia is unjustified. As in all human endeavors, capricious decision making exists, but most senior professors take their role in the tenure and promotion process seriously and do not seize every opportunity to act on grudges or prejudices. I would hate to think of a new assistant professor reading this article and thinking that it accurately describes the next six years of her life.

    First of all, striving for tenure at a university is nothing at all like gambling in a casino. That is, very simply, a preposterous statement. Unless you excel at poker or at counting cards, there is little you can do to improve your odds of winning in Las Vegas. By contrast, you can vastly enhance of your odds of achieving tenure if you follow U.T.'s three habits of the successful junior faculty member:

    1. Publish to the degree appropriate for your institution, and in journals that are well regarded in your discipline.

    2. Care about teaching, take your classes and students seriously, and strive to improve in the classroom.

    3. Don't be an a**hole.

    True, on the rare occasion, an assistant professor who follows these rules may still draw the joker from the deck, as it were, and run into senior faculty creeps who treat the process as an opportunity to exorcise their personal demons. But even if this happens: 1) there's still an appeals process; most deans and provosts know which departments are dysfunctional and which senior professors are jackasses; and 2) by following U.T.'s three habits, you should be in a good position to succeed on the job market even with this apparent black mark on your record.

    In addition, tenure is nothing at all like joining a fraternity (or sorority). Academic departments are not social societies; they are workplaces. For the most part, aspiring associate professors will be judged not on their family background, social skills, or dress. (I mean, really, look around you: do I actually need to point this out?) Instead, in 999 out of 1,000 cases, they will be judged by their work. And, yes, they may be asked to exceed standards which their senior colleagues did not come close to meeting decades earlier when they endured their own T&P tribulations. We call that progress, and we highly recommend it for all institutions.

    Now, having said all that, Habit #3 is not irrelevant. Please, don't be an a**hole. We all have to live with each other for a decade or so, and nothing destroys a working environment faster than a bully, a boor, or a whackjob. I used to think that collegiality standards were unnecessary, and that all who qualified on paper should be granted tenure. Then I ended up in a department where a handful of members not only made their colleagues dread coming to the office every morning, but also impeded the teaching, research, and service missions of the unit.

    Finally, for the grad students and assistant professors who are reading this, please know one thing: we're pulling for you. When we hired you, we made a big investment in your future, and we want that investment to pay off. But more than that, we're human beings who went through what you're going through, and we feel a great deal of empathy for you. Only the rare senior professor takes any joy in firing someone. It is truly a gut-wrenching task to derail the career of someone after you've known them for six years, eaten lunch with them regularly, seen their kids come into the world, and shared their triumphs and setbacks.

    In short, if you follow the three habits described above, almost all of us will fight for you when the time comes. And, by the way, the vast majority of tenure applications are approved. If the casino provided odds like that, I'd move to Vegas tomorrow.

  • Posted by Philosophy Prof on March 29, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
  • I want to disagree with Unapologetically Tenured.

    First -- I don't think it's right to say on the one hand that making tenure is not at all like gambling at a casino, and then to say that to earn tenure one has to publish the right amount. I know a good number of people who got tenure only because they published a bunch of stuff just in time for their tenure review, and who would have been denied tenure (as was made clear in their last pre-tenure annual review) if these last few publications did not materialize. The work was in many cases outstanding, and ended up in first-tier journals, but the point is that the referee process can be a total crapshoot, to come back to the gambling analogy. (The reasons are obvious why the referee process can be a crapshoot, so I won't get into them.) Some people fail to get tenure when the articles aren't accepted for publication within the six-year frame, and given the turnaround time at journals this is not surprising. Maybe some of these papers are not publishable at all, but given the randomness and slow turnaround time many surely are, and these would have been published pre-tenure-decision if they had fallen into the hands of different referees. Indeed, there are countless cases where a paper has two referees and one says that the paper is brilliant and the other that it's shit. So do not deny the randomness, please.

    Second -- academia is certainly not a fraternity in any kind of literal sense, but it's also misleading to say that we are judged on our work, and that we just need to make sure not to be an asshole. Collegiality is an issue, and academics sometimes are real weirdos or have no self-knowledge, and life can be hell for their untenured underlings. The tenured academic can get upset if they feel slighted in some way, or if they are on a power-trip of some kind (though they wouldn't describe themselves as being on a power-trip, but trying to promote the good and weed out the bad, etc.). Also, and more importantly, collegiality is in part a function of pleasantly interacting on a day-to-day basis and in part a function of collaboratig and sharing ideas. If a tenured person for whatever does not want to spend any time with the tenure-track person, or will not try to hear what the tenure-track person is contributing (these things usually have to do with race and gender or with ideology and general comfort levels at dealing with people who aren't homogenous with the group, though again self-knowledge might be absent), then strictly speaking the tenure-track person is not collegial. A person can be a non-asshole but still not make the collegiality cut.

    For the record I am a tenured professor at an elite research institution and I have published my ass off and am regarded as very collegial. I am just aware of how much contingency there is in all of this.

  • Response to Philosophy Prof
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 29, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • I appreciate Philosophy Prof's thoughtful response to my post. I suspect our views are not as far apart as s/he thinks.

    I don't deny that there are aspects to our profession that could be considered random or probabilistic. (This, of course, is true of just about any type of career.) The likely success of an individual journal submission varies enormously depending on which referees are selected by the editor. We all get unlucky (and lucky!) now and again. But six years is still a long time, and if a scholar is consistently "unlucky", this likely speaks more to the quality of the work than it does to the capriciousness of the process. Phil Prof speaks of candidates whose tenure cases depend on getting a few "hits" in top tier journals at the eleventh hour. I would respond that these candidates cannot put themselves in such a position by essentially squandering their first four or so years in the profession, and then complain about the role that luck plays in their ultimate fate. In short, if you are appropriately productive, you will not be at the mercy of just a handful of referees at the last minute; if you are not productive, then you, and not Lady Luck, have been the primary culprit in your unhappy situation.

    Nor do I deny that some departments employ senior faculty who are "real weirdos [who] have no self-knowledge." And these people can certainly make a junior colleague's life less than pleasurable. A few will no doubt vote against even the nicest assistant professor because of perceived slights, power trips, and all the rest. (By the way, this is one reason why we need strong collegiality criteria: to keep these people from rising to the level of departmental decision makers.) It is rare, however, for a department to have a critical mass of such individuals, so a candidate who does good work and plays nicely with others will still most likely get a fair shake. If not, you should get out of that toxic work environment as soon as you can, well before the sixth year. I'll let Phil Prof speak for him/herself, but I'll bet that very few junior faculty members in his/her own department have been inappropriately bounced on collegiality grounds.

    Finally, I don't wish to minimize concerns about the impact of race, gender, methodology, etc. In my experience, these problems are more common in the hiring process than in the T&P process, but administrators obviously need to watch out for problem departments that have a history of treating women and minority candidates poorly.

    So I guess I'll basically stand by what I said before. Academics is like any other profession and has the same degree of uncertaintly and caprice, But it is nothing at all like gambling in a casino.

  • Tenure is only 4.5 years
  • Posted by Paul Gray , Professor Emeritus, Information Systems and Technology at Claremont Graduate University on March 30, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • Don't assume tenure is six years. The tenure case has to be presented at the beginning of year six. That makes it 5 years. But the end of 5 years is the time when papers have to be accepted for inclusion in the packet. Since review takes at least 6 months, the latest you can submit the paper to a journal is at 4.5 years. Recognize that some papers take longer to review, some go through revisions and some are rejected by one journal and then submitted to another, 4.5 years is a generous estimate of when work has to be finished when going for tenure.

  • Democracy, Professor Fraternities, Careerism, and Business Heads
  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on March 30, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Phinney’s article on tenure is very interesting because it really does provide insight into the PERVERTED academic mindset today. How sad for DEMOCRACY that so many professors—surely most—think like Phinney and seem entirely incapable of lifting up the rocks, they so nicely describe, to look underneath them. Pierre Vadeboncoeur put it eloquently: “Il faut renverser les monuments pour voir les vers qui grouillent.” One has to tip over the monuments to see the worms swarming under them. But the likelihood of seeing oneself as a swarming worm might keep many academics from looking under those monuments.

     

    “Therefore, to protect the institution, university tenure guidelines include phrases stating that the granting of tenure shall occur when it is in the best interest of the university,” notes Phinney… failing egregiously to ask—and I think she is truly incapable of doing so—why the best interest of the university has become its entrenched cliques of professors and administrators, as opposed to students, citizens, and DEMOCRACY. Businessmen sit on the boards of directors of universities. That’s why. Be nice to them, and they’ll be nice to you!

     

    We need to ask how and why so many educated persons like Phinney have not been educated to ask serious questions regarding the hands that caress and feed them. We need to ask how staffing the ivory tower with human resources, in lieu of human beings, will affect democracy in the long run. We need to ask how academe’s favoring of the careerist business mentality over the Emersonian truth-telling mentality will affect democracy in America.

     

    “Becoming tenured is like joining a fraternity,” notes Phinney. How true! But again she fails to lift that rock up and look underneath it. Because it is true, does not make it right! We should not accept the “fraternity” situation at all! It needs to be radically challenged and changed. If democracy is to survive, the academic culture of kowtowing needs to be radically changed. PhDs should not be passive accepters! Faculties should not be fraternities. They should be questioning and challenging individuals, rude-truth speakers, not collegial fit-in teamplayers. Professors should not be given contracts because they fit in, but because they dare question and challenge what others do not. Phinney has acquired the business mentality, not the thinker’s mentality. The proliferation of her ilk in academe simply shows how deeply the business model has coopted the university today. Does democracy need professors adept at joining fraternities? No! On the contrary!

     

    “Your chances of success may also improve if you do not get mired in departmental politics or have major conflicts with powerful departmental members,” notes Phinney. Why, one must ask, can she not see that the kind of “success” she seeks, or already possesses, is nothing more than a Faustian Pact: the muzzle for the job-secure cocoon. Democracy cannot survive if higher education continues to train armies of Phinneys. Nor can it survive if journals like Inside Higher Ed continue to feature the cutesy and lame, instead of the courageous.

    It is no less than grotesque that Phinney would compare those not accorded tenure with those developing heart disease. “Among the risk factors for heart disease are hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, and family history. […] Likewise, risk factors for having an unsuccessful tenure case include…].” Is she real or is she simply a goody-two-shoes business puppet? Those accorded tenure tend to be the ones with “heart disease,” not those who dare speak out with a clear critical mind and conscience! Those on the verge of tenure are the ones who willingly let their arteries clog in order to present themselves as no threat at all to the corrupt system. They’re the ones whose brains shut down and hearts cease functioning when it comes to corruption in their midst.
    People like me are not liked in academe, which has a proven record of scorn for freedom of expression (see thefire.org). Inside Higher Ed does not like me, but somehow feels obligated to permit my voice, though only as a comment to someone else’s voice. The Chronicle of Higher Education and Thought & Action refuse to permit my voice at all. One day in the not too distant future perhaps Inside Higher Ed will follow suit. The Phinneys won’t know about it, nor will they give a damn.

    DEMOCRACY demands free thinkers, not businessmen and women in academic regalia, chevrons, and titles.

    G. Tod Slone, Founding Editor, 1998

    The American Dissident, a Journal of Literature, Democracy & Dissidence

    A 501 c3 nonprofit organization providing a forum for vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy,

    And for examining the dark side of the academic/literary established-order milieu

    www.theamericandissident.org

    1837 Main St.

    Concord, MA 01742

  • Response to Unapologetically Tenured
  • Posted by Philosophy Prof on March 30, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • It does sound like there is a lot of agreement here.

    I think that for the most part the system works, in that the only people who are getting tenure are people who are very productive in terms of research, teaching, and service; I am more worried about people who are denied tenure as a result of bad luck, politics. So I think that the casino analogy captures how one can be very unlucky if one ends up in bad circumstances, but the analogy is disanalogous in that most people don't (and so tenure is not a gamble in most cases).

    I am worried about these cases especially given that the six-year clock is very short, and even shorter given that any articles that are accepted in time would have to be under consideration well before that. I should be more clear: six years is a long time, but given that it sometimes takes a year a more to get a reply (often a rejection of course), and a reply with no helpful comments, and given that we have to just keep sending stuff out and waiting yet again, the six years is not much. But the people who do manage to do enough to get tenure in this time period for the most part are pretty damn impressive.

  • Unapologetically untenured
  • Posted by Denied Tenure , Not in academia on April 15, 2009 at 11:45pm EDT
  • Anyone who can write "Don't be an asshole" and "It is truly a gut-wrenching task to derail the career of someone after you've known them for six years, eaten lunch with them regularly, seen their kids come into the world, and shared their triumphs and setbacks" is saying "Do as I say, not as I do".

    One of the most depressing things about being denied tenure is walking down the hall and not knowing whether a particular socalled colleague supported you or not. Even the ones who support you don't say anything to keep the privacy of the blackball.

    Another aspect of being denied tenure is that you are damaged goods. The system really spits you out after six years. All this stuff about making a careful decision because of their 'investment' in you is blown out of the water by this. Everyone is looking for fresh phds or postdocs. Course, maybe I just suck. Maybe I am an asshole. But I don't think so, and you have no basis for knowing.

    In the end, the decision is probably made by a dean or provost who hasn't a clue about your field of endeavor. If you have been denied tenure and had a conversation with this dean or provost, you have a special understanding of John Lennon's line "if you want to be like the folks on the hill, first you must learn to smile as you kill."

  • Validation
  • Posted by Dr. Fisher on April 20, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Leslie's points were right on and I wish that I had her article before I left industry for academia. She would have saved me a lot of time, money and grief. I was naive when I thought academia was about teaching. You can be a marginal teacher and if you publish and bring in money "they" look the other way. However, if you are a terrific teacher without the other two, you will be out so fast your head will spin. I speak from experience. I achieved tenure at not one, but two universities, as well as an endowed chair. What a hollow victory. I want to thank those of you who posted after "unapologetically tenured" for all of your "intellectual puffing." It is reminscent of faculty meetings and validates the reason why I walked out on the whole adavistic system. Academia is a waste of taxpayers money. Just ask Bill Gates who started his own 2-1/2 year private university in Salt Lake. When the system told him they wouldn't accredit his university he said THANK YOU!

    Dr. Deb, recovering academic