Replies

First, this isn't the solution. Ending tenure would not, in any way, "reform" the universities to be more honest, reliable, etc., because the faculty still control the hiring. Until or unless somehow trustees or parents actually hire faculty (fat chance) nothing would change. All that would happen---regardless of what happens to "my job" (and by the way, it was liberals who hired me, promoted me, and gave me tenure, based on my work)---would be that the same liberal committees that dominate tenure and promotion would evaluate and pass judgment on annual contracts or 3-, 4-, or 5-year contracts.

Second, you are missing the central fact the faculty controls the terms of hiring and promotion (and trust me, now matter how legislatures or trustees word any "enforcement" legislation, the faculty STILL would be the ones to interpret it). Take, for example, "Western Civ." courses. We (and many, many other schools) had a WC requirement---but it is impossible to regulate WHAT individual faculty say about western civ. So many of them taught it, and taught it cricially (i.e., WC destroyed the world). Now, unless or until you have parents and administrators in every class taking notes, you aren't going to control that except through the hiring process. (See #1 above).

3) It is the nature of most conservatives NOT to go into academics. Newt wasn't tenured (I don't think) and was not, to my knowledge, a full time faculty member. The last such person to serve in Congress was, I think, Phil Crane of Illinois or Dick Armey, both of whom were college profs. In short, merely doing away with tenure in the short run would hurt what few conservatives are in universities (and there are some) while at the same time do absolutely nothing about the fundamental problem, which is that the universities are NOT subject to market forces. That is where any "reform" of higher education must start---by making students pay for their education without "aid" or scholarships. This is the conclusion of Richard Vedder's study, "Going Broke by Degree."

[ First, this isn't the solution. Ending tenure would not, in any way, "reform" the universities to be more honest, reliable, etc., because the faculty still control the hiring. ]

Wrong...
Tenure flys in the face of capitalism, thats why there IS tenure.. Its like a Super Union.. Enabling the same dialectic just like unions do.. Commies love unions for just that reason.. Its feeds their Utopian concepts.. Did I say SUPER UNION.. AH! yes I did..

The same mangement or management sorry, will probably perform the same way, true. But light THIS situation is muted by many other world affairs.. Tenure is at the base of America problems.. especially collegiate problems.. If your pro-union then you will be pro-tenure.. for the same reasons.. If you are anti-union, like me, you MUST be anti-tenure.. Lets call a spade a spade..

Like you almost CAN'T fire a federal worker.. because of the Federal Workers ~~Party~~ Union.. for damned near anything.. same thing.. The American Teachers Union(s) are a POX on the American education system.. Tenure.. same thing..

The basic idea of tenure rewards incompetence not excellence.. as fleeting as excellence is.. A job for life rewards laziness, like socialism does.. Socialism is slavery by givernment... and Tenure is slavery too incompetence..

There was a time for Unions, now is not that time.. especially of Super Unions.. Reforming the University's will happen gradually AFTER tenure is trashed. BUT not until then.. Since America slowly eroding to socialism the chances of that happening is not great..

I agree with you. Conservatives need to study educational governance and find ways to make public schools serve public interests. As a historian, Newt Guerinrich is well qualified to evaluate the Ward Churchill record, but that does not mean O'Reilly will allow time for it. I am a former academic and historian, and I watched the man for an hour on c-span. A professor should be able to plan a very good one hour presentation, but he did not. What I saw was appalling. He was incoherent, disjointed, and abusive, and hostile. He doesn't repect any one's rights. I am amazed that he is still in the classroom. He should have been suspended and he should be fired. He's embarassed himself and his college, and when he had a chance to redeem himself on national tv he blew it imho.

I agree with your comments and would add that the main beneficiaries of ending tenure would be academic administrators, who would have faculty entirely at their mercy...and administrators tend to be even more ideologically-driven and politically correct than the faculty.

Tenure cannot be taken away from those who already have it (barring malfeasance on the part of individual faculty members)...it could only be denied to future hires. That would make an academic career much less attractive to the best and brightest, and would do nothing about the proportion of leftists coming out of graduate schools.

Right now one problem with universities is the high proportion of courses being taught by part-time adjuncts and temporary hires...eliminating tenure would make faculty turnover much more common, without any increase in intellectual diversity, and probably make for an academically poorer experience for the serious students at a given institution.