OPINION:
America’s higher education system is buckling under its own weight. Universities are slashing programs, running massive deficits, and shutting their doors entirely — even as tuition reaches record highs and student loan debt explodes past $1.8 trillion. The crisis is no longer coming. It’s already here.
Despite successful reforms in states such as Texas and Florida, one issue seems politically untouchable inside academia: tenure.
Supporters of tenure argue that it protects academic freedom and shields faculty from political pressure.
Those goals matter, especially for conservatives who fear backlash from left-wing administrators and students.
But the modern tenure system has evolved far beyond protecting free inquiry. In practice, it often functions as a lifetime employment guarantee, limiting institutional flexibility, restricting universities’ ability to adapt to changing student and workforce demands, and has even been credited with driving up long-term costs.
No serious business in America operates this way. Corporations rarely offer permanent contracts, making it difficult to dismiss underperforming staff. Technology firms, hospitals, law firms, and non-profit organizations all evaluate performance continuously because markets change, industries evolve, and consumer needs shift.
Universities, however, frequently lock themselves into decades-long employment commitments that can outlast academic relevance, enrollment demand, or financial sustainability. The result is an administrative structure that resists change precisely when higher education needs flexibility and innovation most.
Institutional leaders face enormous pressure. Students seek degrees that will prepare them for a career; employers want graduates with the skills and experience to perform well; and families want to know soaring tuition prices are worth the investment.
Yet many university presidents and provosts cannot quickly redirect resources to growing programs because much of their labor structure is fixed by tenure protections.
Departments with declining enrollment often remain staffed at the same levels, while emerging fields struggle to secure resources. Administrators may identify the need for new programs in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, data analytics, or health sciences, only to discover that large portions of the academic budget are tied to faculty positions established decades earlier.
This lack of flexibility has become especially dangerous as smaller colleges close at increasing rates. Since the start of COVID-19, more than 50 private non-profit institutions have shut their doors or merged. Larger institutions have even disbanded academic programs and eliminated departments to make ends meet. With declining birth rates and economic factors cutting into enrollment numbers, institutions burdened by inflexible cost structures are clearly at a disadvantage.
Some universities recognize that the traditional tenure model is financially difficult to sustain.
High Point University offers one example of how private institutions respond to these concerns. The university has pursued aggressive growth, investing nearly $200 million in new construction and hiring 30 new faculty members in 2025 alone. Despite having less than one-third of faculty tenured, High Point consistently ranks #1 in the nation for undergraduate teaching, with 75% of faculty being full-time employees.
At the same time, High Point has earned national recognition for strong retention and reports a 99% job placement or graduate school enrollment rate within six months of graduation, about 14% above the national average.
Public universities, on the other hand, have increasingly responded to tenure concerns through state-led reforms that preserve tenure in name while tightening accountability and oversight.
In Florida, SB 7044 created a mandatory post-tenure review process with regular evaluations tied to performance and potential disciplinary consequences, while Texas’ SB 18 expanded the grounds under which tenured faculty can be dismissed and required clearer institutional procedures for review and termination.
Taken together, these measures reflect a broader shift toward making tenure more contingent on ongoing performance and administrative accountability within public university systems.
Proponents of tenure may argue that reducing tenure threatens academic freedom, but the existence of tenure has not prevented growing pressures toward ideological conformity and self-censorship on many campuses.
Academic freedom does not require guaranteed lifetime employment.
Constitutional protections and institutional policies can safeguard free inquiry without insulating faculty from accountability. Strong contracts, transparent review systems, and multi-year agreements can provide stability without permanently limiting institutional decision-making.
Higher education cannot continue operating under assumptions built for the middle of the 20th century.
Colleges now compete in a rapidly changing economy where students expect value, innovation, and responsiveness. Institutions that remain locked into outdated employment structures risk financial decline and irrelevance.
Tenure was created to protect academic freedom. Today, it often encourages complacency that prevents creativity and innovation. If universities want to survive the economic and demographic pressures already reshaping higher education, tenure reform must be confronted now – not deferred, diluted, or dismissed.
_______
Jacob Matthews is the communications manager for media and public relations at The Heritage Foundation.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.