Tenure has long been a target of conservative higher education reformers. Why should the Marxist professors brainwashing our children enjoy employment for life? Abolish tenure, and we can show them the door. Or so the argument goes.
Yes, there are a fair number of left-wing nutjobs in the academy, bent on indoctrinating rather than teaching—but not nearly as many as conservative pundits and legislators seem to think. As my friend Stanely Ridgely points out in his excellent book, Brutal Minds, the bigger problem when it comes to campus indoctrination is “student life” apparatchiks.
Speaking anecdotally, most professors I know, regardless of their views, are just doing their best to teach their subject matter. They might occasionally allow their political biases to seep into their instruction, human nature being what it is. But for the most part, they are not intentionally doctrinaire.
Some might question my own motives in saying these things. Of course, as a tenured professor, I’d advocate for tenure. Of course, I’d defend my colleagues.
True, I might be somewhat biased, since tenure has saved my butt more than once. Nevertheless, objectively speaking, I believe there are good reasons for the tenure system to persist, that it is a net good for the academy, and that it ultimately benefits not just left-wing nutjobs but also conservatives like me—maybe even more so.
Perhaps, before I go on, I should explain exactly what tenure is and what it isn’t. It is not, as some imagine, a guaranteed job for life. Tenured professors can be fired for any number of good and appropriate reasons, including simply not doing their jobs. Most institutions have processes for regularly evaluating tenured faculty, ensuring they remain productive and continue to perform up to expectations.
In that way, tenure is akin to a partnership in a law or accounting firm. A partner has ownership, is fully invested in the enterprise, and gets a seat at the table when important decisions are made. Yet partners can still be fired if they fail to measure up. They just can’t be summarily fired. The other partners must agree to it, directly or indirectly, through the powers vested in the senior partners.
It’s much the same in academia. Tenured professors might not have literal ownership in the institution, but they have a kind of ownership. They are certainly fully invested in the enterprise, or at least they ought to be. And they have a seat at the table, contributing to important decisions via their participation on various committees, councils, etc. This is known in the academy as “shared governance.”
Shared governance is necessary for an institution to be effective—and yet it is impossible without tenure. Administrators come and go, but faculty members remain—often for 30 or 40 years—and thus deserve to be heard. Yet, to speak honestly and forthrightly, they need protection so that the relatively temporary administrators can’t simply dismiss them over some petty disagreement. Faculty members might not always win the day, but they must be able to take part in the debate, siding against the administration when necessary, without fearing for their jobs. Tenure makes that possible.
The other reason we should preserve the tenure system is that it doesn’t just protect left-wing professors; it protects their conservative counterparts, too. Yes, I know there aren’t many conservative professors right now, and that’s a problem we should address. But without tenure, we would have far fewer. Do you think I could get away with saying what I say, for as long as I have, if I didn’t have tenure?
[RELATED: From Tenured Professor to Lumpenproletariat: The State of Higher Ed Faculty in America]
The idea that, by abolishing tenure, we can jettison left-wing professors and replace them with conservatives is, frankly, delusional. First of all, there aren’t enough conservatives who are qualified to teach at the college level and/or who are eager to do so. Conservatives largely abandoned the academy two generations ago because it doesn’t pay as much as other professions that require similar levels of education.
As for conservatives in the academy who already have tenure, abolishing it will just make their lives more difficult while also making it harder to recruit conservative academics in the future. Who will spend all those years preparing for a job that doesn’t pay much, comparatively, and from which you can be dismissed just because you ticked off the dean?
I know that abolishing tenure is a favorite talking point among my fellow conservatives, but come on, folks, you’ve got to let it go. Ditching it is a bad idea. Instead, let’s focus on reforming discriminatory hiring practices while at the same time encouraging more young people to consider academic careers.
That’s how we’ll bring about lasting change—not by making the people who are already on our side even more vulnerable.
Follow Rob Jenkins on X.
Image: “The Tenure Letter” by Nels Highberg on Flickr
“Tenured professors might not have literal ownership in the institution, but they have a kind of ownership. They are certainly fully invested in the enterprise, or at least they ought to be. And they have a seat at the table, contributing to important decisions via their participation on various committees, councils, etc. This is known in the academy as “shared governance.””
The problem is that tenured professors receive a paycheck — equity partners do not.
Three things to bear in mind here:
1: If the firm make a profit (after both expenses and salaries are paid) the equity partners receive a percentage of that — and it is their ONLY compensation.
2: They often have to *buy* their partnership — i.e. pay a significant amount of money to the firm for their partnership.
3: They usually are personally liable for the debts of the firm.
If the firm does well, they do well — if it doesn’t, they don’t — and if it goes broke, so do they…
Now compare this to a tenured professor — I’m using UMass as an example because I am familiar with UM faculty compensation.
A tenured UMass Professor is considered an employee of the Commonwealth and pays roughly 7% of pay into the Commonwealth’s Retirement System which pays a pension (up to 80% of salary) based on years of service, age at retirement, and three highest yearly salaries. They pay about 2% more into Medicare and qualify for that at age 65. They also participate in the Commonwealth’s Group Health Insurance where they pay 25%(?) of the cost of their health plan. If they want to take a different state job, they can (I know one who did) and their retirement follows them.
Notice the three things that are different here:
1: They are paid twice a month — regardless of how UMass is doing.
2: They didn’t have to buy equity from UMass.
3: They are not liable for UMass’ debts. If it goes broke, they are unharmed.
I argue that this is a very big difference from being an equity partner — the faculty want to have the authority to run the university, but not any of the responsibility and liability that comes with having that authority. And that’s why higher ed is such a mess right now…
“First of all, there aren’t enough conservatives who are qualified to teach at the college level and/or who are eager to do so. Conservatives largely abandoned the academy two generations ago because it doesn’t pay as much as other professions that require similar levels of education.”
1: Conservatives were forced to abandon the academy when it became openly hostile to them in the aftermath of Vietnam. It wasn’t that it “doesn’t pay as much” as that it wasn’t viable. They went into other things — think tanks, politics, talk radio, etc.
For example, the late David Brudnoy was highly educated with at least one doctorate (memory is two) and did adjunct gigs throughout Boston. But as he would never get hired for a tenure-track position, he wound up hosting a quite popular 4-hour talk show for nearly 30 years, winding up on a station that can be heard in 38 states and much of Atlantic Canada.
Clearly qualified to be a professor, and wanted to be one, but couldn’t be — so he essentially became a professor on the radio.
2: There may be conservative professors with tenure, but there aren’t young conservative professors with tenure. Can you name any under the age of 45? Who are “out of the closet” as conservatives?
The only one I ever knew was the late Mike Adams, and he got hired as a leftist atheist before converting to Christianity and becoming conservative. And even then, it took a lawsuit for him to actually be awarded his tenure.
3: Tenure does not protect conservative professors. I have literally lost count of the number of tenured conservative professors who have been forced out if not outright fired.
It might mean that the institution has to do extra paperwork, or encourage a terroristic mob of woke student activists, but I haven’t yet seen a conservative professor saved by tenure.
4: “Qualified” is subjective as (unlike K-12) there are no certification requirements. Two historical examples — (a) the initial Computer Science and Nuclear Engineering professors weren’t “qualified” with grad degrees in their fields because they were the first people actually teaching such courses. Their qualifications lay elsewhere (e.g. classified work with the Manhattan Project).
And (b) the same was true with professors in other new fields such as Afro Am Studies. I know of one professor whose published book was accepted in lieu of a doctorate, this was not uncommon.
There ARE qualified conservative candidates, they just don’t have traditional CVs.
I know from my own experience as an outed, once-outspoken, rather conservative tenured professor, Rob Jenkins is absolutely right.
And in what year were you awarded tenure?
And in what year (roughly) do you plan to retire?
While there is an exception to every rule, I doubt you were awarded tenure in this century.
Hence even if tenure protected conservative professors, that will be irrelevant in a couple of decades when all of the conservative professors are retired.
I think of tenure as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for academic freedom. So e.g. it has saved quite a few conservatives from termination. I’m sure I would have kept my mouth shut had I not had tenure. Shut about political-social-educational stuff.
But it is not all about politics by any means: it also protects professors to work on stuff that people think is not fashionable or is just wrong. My favorite example perhaps was Einstein! His reaction to a paper of 1935 known as “EPR” was typified by Oppenheimer” “Einstein is Cuckoo!” Interestingly, it is now Einstein’s most cited paper.
Not all even new professors are leftists. I would estimate that maybe 1 in 6 or so in the sciences are somewhat conservative, or “conservandish” to use a locution of John McWhorter (who I would say is conservandish). I know young professors who I guarantee don’t like DEI.
It is true that the proportion of conservatives have dropped a lot, especially in the humanities, languages, education etc. I don’t claim to have a good explanation, nor a good remedy. I do think that the fault lies most with the leftists, but also to some extent with the conservatives.
Here’s one piece of an explanation: conservatives tend to be very picky about where they will take tenured or tenure-track positions.
There is a well-known former Harvard professor who writes pretty often in the quality popular press. I read his stuff with appreciation. I know that he didn’t receive tenure at Harvard, or at least I am nearly certain. He hasn’t as far as I know gone on somewhere else with tenure. I would bet he could have gotten a good position, just not Harvard. I’ve known several people who didn’t get tenure at Harvard. They survived and then went on to really good careers at fine places. Not everyone can get tenure at Harvard. They may be lucky.
At present, support for young conservative faculty is being completely crushed by the attacks from the Trump administration.
“At present, support for young conservative faculty is being completely crushed by the attacks from the Trump administration.”
Bullshyte.
1: Deflation affects all equally — if EVERYONE’S CV is 90% thinner, there’s no change between people.
2: If anything, it would be the young LEFTIST faculty who are affected most.
3: I’m not buying this myth of young conservative professors.
” His reaction to a paper of 1935 known as “EPR” was typified by Oppenheimer” “Einstein is Cuckoo!” Interestingly, it is now Einstein’s most cited paper.”
Einstein did not have tenure in 1935 — he didn’t even have a steady employer at the time. He had *multiple* good offers in both the US and Europe, and did eventually settle on Princeton, but in 1935, he was still an adjunct — a very famous adjunct but still only an adjunct drifting from place to place (and maybe hoping the Nazis were a passing fad).
Further, saying “Einstein is Cuckoo” is different from saying “Einstein should be fired.” Back then you debated people you disagreed with, not blacklisted them.