The Thorny Issue of Tenure

The writer is a current president.

To say that today’s higher education environment is one of uncertainty, fast and dramatic change, and political posturing may be an understatement. The pressure from the insistent voices of those who have a stake in universities, and who have their own personal and/or professional agendas, is real.

I can understand the dissatisfaction with the tone-deafness exhibited by higher education leaders and faculty—and accrediting bodies—over the years, creating a sense that we don’t have to be accountable to anyone but ourselves.

I can understand the assault on tenure, when many universities have failed to get rid of unproductive faculty members and, in some cases, even toxic people. I support tenure for what it is supposed to protect: the ability of faculty to teach and research controversial topics without interference from people who don’t want to hear things they don’t agree with.

Even as I support the concept of tenure, I realize that my institution’s reliance on adjunct and other non-tenure-track faculty dilutes my message of support for it. It’s a conflict of ideology and pragmatism.

My fear is bigger than one political side pressuring universities to adopt policies, avoid certain research subjects, and teach subjects a certain way because it believes our institutions lean toward the “other” side. That’s bad enough.

Even worse is the dismantling of systems and safeguards in universities that are important for intellectual pursuit and even democracy to thrive. Once they’re gone, it will be easy for whoever is in power to make decisions to dismantle, overthrow, and wield influence for personal or professional gain.

The pendulum historically swings to bring balance when one set of influencers is deemed to have gone too far. But this time, without any boundaries to protect universities in the critical role to educate, study, research, and speak, the pendulum will likely swing wildly from extreme position to extreme position without finding equilibrium or center.

This lack of boundary, lack of frame, lack of protection for a higher education system with at least some freedom to object is more dangerous than any one political viewpoint.

***

On another note: A few months ago I read with interest the conversation between Rachel Toor and Gordon Gee in which Gordon discussed his daughter, Rebekah. He described their relationship as close, particularly since the death of her mother from cancer.

I thought about presidential families. Most presidents understand that they sign up to be targets when they accept the job, its responsibilities, and its perks. Social media has made attacks very public.

My own children have benefited from some of the trappings that go with university administration. They’ve traveled to cool places, met lovely people, attended enriching events, and enjoyed some influence because of the people to whom they’ve had access.

They’ve also had to endure hearing criticisms of their parents and having their own actions—good and bad—topics of conversations among people who want them to fail or be punished because of their family connections.

I want to give a special shout-out to spouses, parents, and children who hang in there and support their family members who do the work every day to help students prepare for a better future.

[Ed’s note: Presidents, please feel free to pass this on to your family members. And for those who are interested, here’s a This American Life segment with my co-columnist, Gordon Gee, and his daughter, Rebekah. Trigger warning: It’s sad.]