- The Washington Times - Friday, May 13, 2005

Tenure in our universities is simply unlike any other institution in American society. Take the case of Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado.

Because of his inflammatory slander of the September 11, 2001, terror-attack victims, the public turned its attention to his status. We discovered he did not have a Ph.D., created a Native-American identity, and appropriated the intellectual property of others — but was promoted to a tenured full professorship, protected by a lifetime contract.

No equivalent for chief executive officers or dishwashers exists. Journalists, politicians, lawyers and others who take unpopular stands also lack guaranteed jobs. Doctors do no not enjoy them. They can lose their posts, despite 30 years of reputable work, because of a single missed diagnosis.

Professors, however, after an initial six years’ probation, win the equivalent of lifelong employment from their peers. Why does this strange practice linger?

The standard rationale is the stuff of higher education is unfettered inquiry. Only by enjoying shelter from the storm of politics can professors be bold enough to take up the tough task of challenging young minds to question orthodoxy.

McCarthyism is evoked as the only bleak alternative to tenure. If untenured professors find themselves on the wrong side of popular opinions, politicized firings will supposedly follow.

Why then does uniformity of belief characterize the current tenured faculty? Contemporary universities are among the most homogeneous of all American institutions, at least in attitudes toward controversial issues of race, gender, class and culture. Faculty senate votes aren’t just at odds with American popular opinion; they often resemble more the 90 percent majorities we see in illiberal Third-World stacked plebiscites.

Sometime in the 1960s, many faculties felt the university’s proper role was to gravitate away from the Socratic method of disinterested inquiry, and instead to press for a preordained and “correct” worldview. Since America was supposedly guilty of oppressing those who were not white, conservative, male, capitalist, Christian and heterosexual, the university offered a rare counterpoint. The hope was that for four years the nation’s next generation would be offered an antidote to Middle America before assuming the tainted reins of power.

Tenure became part of protecting this strange culture in which the ends justified the means: Bias in the classroom was passed off as “balance” to an inherently prejudiced society. Academia came to resemble the medieval church that likewise believed its archaic protocols were free from review, given its vaunted mission of saving souls.

Our universities are also two-tiered institutions of winners and losers. Despite the populist rhetoric of professors, exploitation occurs daily under their noses. Perennial part-time lecturers, many with the requisite Ph.D.s, often teach the same classes as their tenured counterparts. Yet they receive about 25 percent of the compensation per course with no benefits.

Universities cannot remove expensive tenured “mistakes” or public embarrassments. But they can turn to cheaper and more fluid part-time teaching. Orwellian moments thus follow at annual department reviews of faculty and student appraisals. Untenured lecturers often outscore full professors in their evaluations but lack any institutional remedy for that paradox.

The weird disconnect extends within professors’ careers. For six years, stressed younger faculty pounce on every committee assignment possible. They try to publish anything they can think up, and defer daily to a tenured hierarchy.

These untenured scramble to pass muster from entrenched peers, whose evaluations can extend indefinitely their careers — on the promise that, if successful, they need never again submit to such scrutiny or to exhibit such zeal. “Post-tenure review” is an oxymoron, not a real audit.

Administrators are supposed to be diabolically punitive. Yet what we have seen from Harvard’s contrite Larry Summers suggests the very opposite. College presidents follow faculty consensus and apologize for the rare deviation from it. A requirement to run a contemporary American university is to be Januslike — skillfully reassuring outraged alumni donors what they suspect is not really going on at their alma maters.

Reasonable people can debate what would be lost were tenure abolished. But the warning that, in our litigious society, professors would lack fair job protection is implausible. Renewable five-year agreements — outlining in detail teaching and scholarly expectations — would still protect free speech, without creating lifelong sinecures for those who fail their contractual obligations.

University tuition costs continue creeping higher than the inflation rate. The percentage of cheaper classes taught by adjunct instructors increases as well. Yet the competence of recently graduated students is ever more in question.

What is not scrutinized in this disturbing calculus is a mandarin class that claims to be radically egalitarian but in fact insists on an unusual privilege most other Americans do not enjoy.

In recompense, the university has not delivered a better-educated student, or a more intellectually diverse and independent-thinking faculty.

It has instead accomplished precisely the opposite.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide