BY ROBERT A. SCOTT

At the recent National Conservative Conference, the author J. D. Vance, a Yale Law School graduate and former investment banker who is running for the US Senate from Ohio, quoted former president Richard Nixon’s salvo that “the professors are the enemy.” He joins a chorus of those challenging the authority and autonomy of academics in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. These critics echo Nixon in decrying the academic freedom of professors to seek the truth no matter where it may hurt.

In addition to criticizing faculty research, especially as it relates to slavery and racism in US history, carbon emissions and climate change, or face masks and public health measures, politicians have taken to criticizing an important element of academic freedom—that is, tenure. They want to remove this historic protection for academics to pursue lines of reasoning and research that may be counter to prevailing attitudes and beliefs.

Tenure was adopted in the United States in the early twentieth century to protect faculty from partisan reprisals. It provides a lifetime appointment that can be terminated only for cause or exceptional conditions, such as fiscal exigency of the institution or a discontinued academic program. However, the concept of tenure originated in nineteenth-century German research universities. It provided protection for faculty who had earned the right to pursue knowledge for its own sake, with no instrumental purpose required. Some of the greatest advances in what we know about the world, health and medicine, and technological breakthroughs were made possible in this way.

Some argue that tenure is not needed because of provisions protecting freedom of speech and assembly, yet those protections are challenged by elected officials and those charged with public safety. Others argue that the tenure system limits innovation and institutional responsiveness to societal changes and needs. Still others assert that university faculty should not have protections unavailable to workers in business and industry.

Many of these arguments fall flat. To those who question the privilege of tenure for faculty, I ask why not improve the protections for all who work on behalf of society? Tenure is recommended after a seven-year probationary period of six to seven years; safeguards are built in. And while it can be time-consuming, tenure can be removed, as I learned during my thirty years as a college president.

Tenure is only granted by governing boards that hold the institution in trust. As of fall 2019, 37 percent of all faculty members at US colleges and universities were tenured or tenure-track (see figure 5 on page 14 of this report). The number of tenured and tenure-track faculty has declined over the past several decades as the reliance on part-time, contingent, or adjunct faculty members has increased. Part-time faculty are beneficial in many cases, especially in providing expertise not needed full time, but they are not an adequate substitute for full-time, tenured faculty. Many have jobs on multiple campuses and neither the office space nor the time necessary to properly advise students. Most lack the incentive to do more than show up to teach their classes.

While multiple-year contracts may serve as an alternative to tenure-track and tenured faculty positions, they are poor substitutes in an important way. Full-time, tenured faculty are partners in governance with the board of trustees and president in fulfilling the mission and meeting the expectations of an institution’s public charter and both regional and professional accreditations.

Faculty have primary responsibility for the following areas:

• curriculum and methods of instruction, including innovative responses to new knowledge and needs;
• research, scholarship, and creative activity;
• recruitment, mentoring, and retention of faculty;
• setting degree requirements;
• involving students in scholarship;
• advising students about courses of study, research opportunities, and internships;
• advising student organizations;
• participating in third-party reviews of academic programs and professional degrees;
• maintaining institutional and programmatic accreditation; and
• participating in strategic planning, setting priorities, and searches for senior administrators.

These are the responsibilities of those who have a long-term and vested interest in the institution, for those who are partners in governance.

The role of the university is to serve as creator, curator, and critic, three roles in which faculty are key. Our institutions are the creators of what is new, whether from a molecular reaction or a synthesis of theories on social phenomena or preparing students of all ages for work and citizenship. They are curators of the past, society’s memory, whether recorded in ink, clay, brass, or databases. They also are critics of the status quo, asking questions related to justice, equality, and “what if?’  These are the roles of full-time scholars protected from political second-guessing.

This is not to say that our systems cannot be improved. A simple review of the alignment of institutional mission statements and the proportion of students who graduate in even six years indicates that there is a misalignment of goals, the use of resources, rewards, and results. More institutions should employ rigorous periodic external reviews of academic programs, including their purpose, curricula, faculty expertise, resources, and student expectations, opportunities, and results. Institutions also can and should sponsor posttenure reviews on a regular schedule to help identify areas of faculty strengths and needs for continuing development. Every other profession requires a form of continuing professional education, and we in higher education should also.

Colleges and universities are not only teaching institutions; they also are learning institutions. By engaging the faculty as important partners in governance and mission fulfillment, embracing their academic freedom and the protections of tenure, we can continue to strengthen institutional capacities for fulfilling collegiate purposes and serving the public good.

Robert A. Scott held the top three posts in American higher education, serving as president of a private university, Adelphi (2000–15); a public institution, Ramapo College of New Jersey (1985–2000); and the statewide higher education coordinating board of New Jersey (1994). He also served as assistant commissioner of the Indiana Commission on Higher Education (1979–85). He is the author, editor, or contributor to eighteen books, most recently How University Boards Work (2018), and the recipient of a 2019 Eric Hoffer Book Award. He is a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.