Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed
RST: I recently chatted with a current president who said, “Ohio State. Can you believe it?” What a quaint way for a leader to get the boot, instead of the more common instance of a board hiring a “change agent” and then not liking the changes.
EGG: Of course, I am sensitive to this issue because of my long relationship with Ohio State. Any time a president loses their job there is always a lesson. Unfortunately, we often fail to ask what can be learned, but rather we move quickly past the moment. I know and respect Ted Carter—
RST: Frailty, thy name is Ted. Is the lesson “Don’t cheat on your wife”? Or, “Make good choices”?
EGG: —but the reality is that Ohio State has lost several presidents in a row through a quick exit. I applaud the board for not doing the normal academic thing, appointing an interim and conducting a search and finding yet another president.
RST: To me, this may be a scandal that grew out of something we’ve talked about a lot: the loneliness of the job. Still, people, get a dog if you crave unconditional love and attention.
EGG: Universities need a steady hand at the helm at this point. When presidents stick their own heads out of the foxhole, it is almost certain to create a shooting gallery. Rachel, this is the problem that we face in universities. We need tough-minded leadership, but universities are so unforgiving that leadership is rewarded with votes of no confidence or being asked to resign. That reality and the ever-present tension and uncertainty sometimes force presidents to find refuge even if it is dangerous.
RST: Or just dumb. Why not just guzzle warm diet A&W root beer at home and watch Love Is Blind like a normal person?
EGG: Or drink diet Dr. Pepper and watch a rerun of Ohio State crushing Michigan. 🤓👍🏻
RST: Moving right along, let’s touch the third rail for presidents: tenure. You did nothing to change it at any of the universities where you served as president, but you did go gung-ho for the University of Austin. To me, that looks like St. John’s University on steroids in terms of curriculum, and Iet’s just say I have some issues. Since I know you are not a right-wing nutjob, my hunch is that you were drawn to it for different reasons and one of them was the structural changes one can effect by starting an institution from the ground up.
EGG: That is correct. I believe after so many attempts at attempting real change, I had to admit that creating change in the university is like moving a graveyard. So, if someone has the audacity to create a new university without any graveyards, it is a chance to reset higher education by showing that there is another pathway for success. In the institutions I have served, fundamental change was always hand-to-hand combat. And you are correct that I had the opportunity to initiate substantive changes but often failed. But those failures have led me to believe even more strongly that this is a time of jeopardy for many institutions.
RST: Just to hammer it home, you didn’t make needed changes because you were scared of losing your job.
EGG: Yes, I was scared and sometimes helpless.
RST: And now we should all be afraid of losing our jobs. That’s what I think my faculty colleagues may be missing. We are in a change-or-die moment. Many of the presidents I talk to are struggling to figure out how to keep the lights on, which means having to close programs and fire faculty. I am not sure how my colleagues aren’t getting the message that the world is different and their jobs are actually in jeopardy, tenured or not. When faculty wants to oust a president because they don’t like changes, do they really think the board is going to hire a new guy who’s going to come in and not see all the same budget problems and do things that are going to make them even more unhappy?
EGG: We former presidents know that we have coddled faculty, and not undeservedly in many instances. But we created a belief that they will be protected from the turmoil around them. I have said many times over the past few years that the changes we were making assured that many will have jobs because of the sacrifices of a few. They have a hard time listening to and understanding that message.
RST: Well, we are all unique and beautiful snowflakes. Let’s get back to tenure, which, to me, protects the time to think and the ability to do research, no matter how long it takes or where it ends up. What else do we need it for?
EGG: You contend that those who are doing research specifically need tenure because they may be on a very long and rocky path. That is nonsense. The myth is that without tenure universities cannot function. Certainly, faculty need protection to be able to do their work. That is provided by the courts, but now universities need to start creating individual pathways for faculty members. And we need to make certain that we are setting high and transparent expectations of performance.
RST: Isn’t that what the path to tenure is supposed to ensure? That we’re doing things that are sort of measurable? We all think we’re mini-mes of Harvard, Amherst and Michigan. So to get tenure, faculty have to do research, teach and perform service. But—and this will make me a target—I’m not sure, as a professor at a regional comprehensive, or that someone at a small liberal arts college, really needs to be doing research in order to fulfill the mission of the institution. But we’re all promoted based on those three things. Research is the easiest to measure.
EGG: We need individual pathways. By that, I mean that different universities have different callings and faculty within those institutions have unique responsibilities. This is an awful analogy, but very often football coaches have five-year rolling contracts—
RST: 😩 That’s where you’re going? If so, I’d like that kind of salary and an NIL deal.
EGG: —and performance and incentives are much more compelling than the tenure system, in my view. Rachel, as you know, I’ve asked you a number of times why you do not give up tenure—
RST: Gordon, as I keep telling you, I’m waiting for you to find me another job. But seriously, in the context of my university, it wouldn’t make a difference. Unless you’re calling me dead wood.
EGG: Tenure is only a symbolic issue in the modern university. My colleagues and I have written two hefty books on the law of higher education, and I can tell you, unequivocally, that universities are protected through procedures that have been created surrounding academic freedom and free speech by the courts and legislatures. Yet, tenure is used in universities as both a bludgeon and the belief that once given, one has lifetime employment.
RST: Couldn’t we solve that with a more rigorous post-tenure review process?
EGG: Of course. One could argue that it should be asked every year of every tenured faculty member whether they are still tenurable. Gaining tenure should be the low-water mark of one’s academic achievements. You should now have the freedom to really fly. So, yes, there are multiple ways to think about managing tenure, but the one thing that cannot be tolerated is that tenure is all about job security.
RST: Well, my first career was publishing scholars’ revised dissertations so they could get tenure and write much more interesting books, so I kind of agree. But this conversation would have made more sense to me a few years ago if I really believed that tenure and academic freedom were not connected. But we now have states where legislators are making curricular decisions.
EGG: Simply put: Academic freedom is essential for an institution to have a robust teaching and learning environment. Academic freedom, for which tenure is an underlying concept, in its plainest term means that one should have no fear of expressing one’s views within the academic enterprise.
RST: If I were teaching my current creative writing syllabus in Texas or Florida (or Ohio or Oklahoma or Indiana or Iowa), I would be afraid.
EGG: Well, then, stay where you are and hope the thought police do not come for you. I do not mean to make light of this, but I think that there is no need to be hysterical about what is happening in certain states. The imagination is far outdistancing the reality. And it comes back to my earlier contention that if university administrators and faculty would exercise common cause with the publics they serve, the fear factor and need to control would be greatly lessened.
RST: Now you’re just trying to egg me on to trot out the best line I’ve ever written (again): Gordon, you ignorant slut! I adore you and we are living in different worlds. Next, let’s talk about something less touchy. Like shared governance.
