I see a number of comments below hailing this as a good thing, one that will benefit students. These folks look at Universities as just another company and think this is normal. It is not. It is a terrible mistake and the GA system (and its students, and society) will be worse off for it.
The notion of tenure wasn't developed to protect dead wood. It came about because historically it was often difficult to distinguish "fired for cause" from "fired for speaking out in ways that irritate the powers that be." The ability to fire people for cause is appropriate to businesses and startups, and even there we routinely hear about controversies where "for cause" is blurred together with "saying things that leadership didn't like." The tenure system was explicitly designed to prevent that, and yes, the "cost" of that system is that some dead wood will slip by -- but this has always been an acceptable cost. Our society relies on having a pool of people who cannot be easily silenced by their employers. We will suffer when those guarantees are weakened.
On a personal note: I'm a tenured CS professor and make less than half (often significantly less) than what my colleagues in industry make, for a job that often requires longer hours and a lot of travel. I also have had some experience with having my speech restricted by the administration [1] under the guise of "violations of University policy". As a tenured faculty member I stay because there is no other job where I can speak about anything I want, even if sometimes I say dumb things. My colleagues in industry can't do this -- some of them tell me they are scared to even "like" Tweets that criticize their employer. That's messed up.
To those folks who don't care about these broader arguments and think this decision is reasonable, that it "will improve faculty performance," even there you're wrong. If GA becomes the state that doesn't have tenure, all the best faculty will go to other states and/or to industry. Every state university already struggles to get top talent, and now GA has given themselves a huge hiring disadvantage. Whatever "productivity" benefits you might get from greater faculty control are going to be hugely outweighed by the fallout from this stupid (and obviously political) decision. The board of regents knows this, and they don't care.
Piggybacking the comment about Georgia becoming less attractive and competitive for good faculty, in 2015 Wisconsin significantly weakened the tenure system as well. I was curious about the affect of that decision and found this recently published paper:
As a note, Wisconsin simultaneously weakened tenure and cut the university budget, which makes it difficult to distinguish the affect of each change. Nevertheless, the net result was fewer faculty and increased class size. Personally, I agree with your sentiment. This makes Georgia far less attractive for good faculty and those with options will go elsewhere.
I am inclined to agree with you but I am also somewhat conflicted due to recent events at my alma mater. It was just revealed that a tenured CS professor is the author of a hate filled blog that disparages women, lgbtq+, and minorities [1]. Ostensibly this guy is "protected" due to his tenure status. I am not sure this is really good for anyone.
One thing you have to remember is that tenure protects teachers against the religious activists. The religious activists are ALWAYS more motivated and numerous than any defense that teachers can mount.
This is continuous and everlasting. Things like "critical race theory" and its ilk are the current bugaboos. But the "Theory of Evolution" was there in the past. Talking about the documented historical evils that various religions promulgated always sets off the nitwits. Even teaching Canterbury Tales in English and pointing out that the priest has symptoms of syphilis will tend to rile up the local frocks.
The problem is that in 1965 talking about the equality of women and minorities was "controversial" enough that it needed to be protected by tenure. And the college campuses were definitely at the epicenter of the equality movements.
Right now, I suspect that talking about abortion needs to be protected by tenure.
I'm not sure what the right answer is, but destroying tenure is, I suspect, going to do far more damage than good--especially for progressive causes.
I think that politically correct ideas about one of those groups are both illogical and harmful to society. Some might find my views repugnant and wrongly describe them as "hate-filled". Does that mean I shouldn't be able to hold a job, or that to do so I should have to hide my opinions and express them only surreptitiously? If not, your argument against tenure doesn't hold. If so, I'd love to hear more about your reasoning.
> Does that mean I shouldn't be able to hold a job, or that to do so I should have to hide my opinions and express them only surreptitiously?
You should, and are, free to express those opinions but bigotry is not a protected class. Your employer should be free to fire you if it doesn't like what you are saying.
What value does tenure provide in this scenario? His blog is not related to CS or academia. He is doing harm to the reputation of the university and CS department.
I don't agree that he's "doing harm to the reputation of the university and CS department." I notice that it's especially with regard to universities that this argument arises. If he were working at Cost Cutters, or Copps Foods, or State Farm, no one would think that his employer was acting wrongly in employing him. There is nothing about a university that makes employing someone with his opinions do more reputational harm. On the contrary, a university has more reason to tolerate his divergent views, because it is directly concerned with intellectual freedom and free inquiry, which often leads people to investigate and even advocate for positions that are incorrect and even immoral (which, I agree, a cursory look at his website suggests his are). That's what tenure provides in this scenario: protection for intellectual freedom, even when free inquiry carries a professor into areas that are disapproved of in polite society.
> I don't agree that he's "doing harm to the reputation of the university and CS department."
Well thats where we disagree i guess. When people google University of Montana computer science and see the dozens of articles that pop up about this guy they are not going to think oh yay this school is a champion of intellectual freedom. They are going to see a tenured professor propping up the worst of the worst CS stereotypes and software engineering bro culture.
It's a fair point. One of the biggest pros in favor of unpopular freedom of speech is preventing revolution via the airing and discussion of suppressed views.
In a college environment is probably the most socially safe (i.e. distinct from propagandizing) and productive (i.e. more likely to be intellectually examined) environments for them.
So if they exist anywhere, and I subscribe to the idea that unpopular things need to be speakable somewhere, then college is a good place.
Sample size of one shouldn't change your perspective on a whole class of people. There are bad actors in every group - and, while it is shameful his deeds, you can't castigate a whole class of people.
I'm also not sure extreme cases form a good argument anyway. Tenure isn't a blanket "Get out of jail free" card no matter what the behavior or the offense.
Sometimes the cost of open and unrestricted speech is that people will use it to say ugly things. This is another part of the tradeoff and I think it's still a good one.
The other shoe is tenured faculty get their abusive research transgressions smoothed over and covered up by their institutions because firing is too much trouble.
Improperly consent human research subjects? Abuse children? Abuse students? Hire an unqualified fitness instructor FWB to oversee research data? Have to return a multimillion grant?
Just give said students free tuition and go back to making performative "woke" press releases about the abuser like it never happened.
Of course in states like Georgia they probably don't really care about that kind of thing either, so much as weeding out "liberals" or something.
Seems like a logical next step in shifting power at universities to the administrative staff. In 50 years universities are going to look like technical institutes - all the teaching and research staff will be employees that can be fired on a whim.
This just means they got rid of the concept of tenure.
Albeit, I have heard it argued that tenure is not as relevant in the modern era of social media and twitter mobs, because academia is turning into a monoculture of thought through self-censorship.
It is understandable that the more diverse taxpaying public would start to question the purpose of protecting the views of a privileged elite class when they themselves don’t feel supported.
Self censorship in this case means censure by professional colleagues. As opposed to censure by the executive class. Executives are far more sensitive to Twitter mobs than professional colleagues.
The medical and legal profession also censures fellow practitioners who, regardless of their basis in scientific or factual thinking, bring infamy to the profession through recklessness or callousness to the wellbeing of others.
Tenure is arguably more relevant than ever to the degree that you believe a tenured professor has some special right as an employee to spout off controversially on Twitter or a blog without professional repercussions. I have some trouble making that argument though.
Certainly it's not true of professionals in general. While I get the idea behind tenure, what is the argument that a tenured CS professor has a particular right to express controversial political opinions that a senior engineer at a large technology company does not?
(Though there are other arguments such as said professor maybe should be able to work on some idea other people think is a dead end while it's probably reasonable that the engineer's manager can just tell them work on it on your own time if you want.)
Professors most certainly are not a "privileged elite class." They're research/teaching specialists. Your talking point sounds straight out of some right-wing website/tv channel.
Sorry, I should have added ‘’ around ‘privileged elite class’ to be more clear that it is certainly a label up for debate.
Unfortunately, with the destruction of many jobs due to outsourcing and the shrinking middle class, there are a growing % (and number) of citizens who would consider tenured professors (and their surrounding bureaucracy) an elite institution that looks down on their way of life. Treading this carefully might be necessary since their voting power is growing.
And in this case, we're talking about assigning power from the professional class to the executive class, whilst in the same breath bashing Twitter "mobs".
> Professors most certainly are not a "privileged elite class."
What is tenure if not a privilege? And if it isn't then what's the problem here? If tenure isn't something valuable then why are we discussing a story about it being taken away?
EDIT: Just lol at the downvotes and the comments here. Lots of snark, personal attacks, but no one actually able to explain how tenure is not a privilege.
Ah yes, the "privileged elite class" consisting of underpaid professors, and the oppressed have finally risen up to turn the power to control speech back over to administrators where that power rightly belongs.
Really depends on the field. Prestigious profs leading departments or research institutes are making multiples of $100k, even if an average niche humanities profs are making waaaaaay less. And tons of people are trapped in adjunct work.
> Ah yes, the "privileged elite class" consisting of underpaid professors, and the oppressed have finally risen up to turn the power to control speech back over to administrators where that power rightly belongs.
Pointless snark that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
It's a guarantee that someone has been teaching the same thing for years can continue teaching the same thing when political winds shift. It's there so that people such as yourself can't replace them with those whose views they prefer. You classify professors as if they are all the same, which means you're creating a straw man to weaken the position as whole without actually providing any sort of specific point to argue about.
How else would you consider professors to be privileged? How do you consider them elite?
> It's a guarantee that someone has been teaching the same thing for years can continue teaching the same thing when political winds shift.
Yeah. Seems valuable. A privilege, almost.
> It's there so that people such as yourself can't replace them with those whose views they prefer.
Gratuitous personal attack.
> You classify professors as if they are all the same, which means you're creating a straw man to weaken the position as whole without actually providing any sort of specific point to argue about.
What?
> How else would you consider professors to be privileged?
How else? So you admit that they are privileged in one sense, in the sense of having tenure, of not having to fear getting fired for speech, and you're asking me how else they are privilged?
> How else? So you admit that they are privileged in one sense, in the sense of having tenure, of not having to fear getting fired for speech, and you're asking me how else they are privilged?
You're manipulating what I said. The word 'else' is in reference to what other ways do YOU think they are privileged. And you still haven't answered the questions.
> You're manipulating what I said. The word 'else' is in reference to what other ways do YOU think they are privileged.
OK. So you do not admit that tenure is a privilege?
> And you still haven't answered the questions.
You have some nerve. You write a comment filled with snark and personal attacks that doesn't answer any of my questions, and now you demand that I answer your questions?
The move is being criticized by many professors, politicians and advocates for academic freedom as a threat to tenure, which is intended to protect faculty from dismissal without just cause, allowing them to develop thoughts or ideas that may be unpopular.
Reap what you sow. Universities have spent twenty years crushing unpopular opinions with free speech zones and hate-mob controlled speaking appointments. They've attacked the concept of due process by booting students at the slightest unsubstantiated accusation of racism or sexual assault.
If this wasn't a disaster I'd be pissing myself laughing.
Im not sure this is a good take - most of the things you’re describing are basically an increase of administrative power; so too is letting the admin fire tenured professors. The story here is really one of metastasis of university administration
The story here is really one of metastasis of university administration
Indeed it is, I agree. My point is professors have been happy to let administrators stomp all over the rights of students but suddenly diversity of thought and protecting dissident opinions is important now that it's the professors in the crosshairs. Don't get me wrong; this is a horrible development. It just comes with a tinge of poetic justice.
Another nail in the American University casket. I worked in academic research for 3 years, and GTFO. I still have a project here and there with a University, but I largely avoid them.
While I do, in principle, agree with the tenure system, it's just not compatible with what the American University system has become. The system has two systems within it: 1. teach / train / attract students and charge large tuition for promises of them entering the workforce higher than their high school colleagues (and justify the price with parties and college football, new dorms, etc.) 2. perform high end research that is funded by Uncle Sam, in which the Universities' skim 40-120% overhead on (yes, OVER 100%) that pays the bills and keeps the lights on. Also pays for large admin salaries.
Universities are corporations, and are "for profit." I'm not sure free inquiry, free speech, and the likes are compatible with making students feel safe / not offended so they can attract their tuition $, while also attracting $ from Uncle Sam and corporations for research.
I'm going a different way here since the important metric is that out of 5800 tenured faculy, only 1500 professors signed their petition (article did not specify tenured status of those who signed). As an academic, I have to say this is largely about preparing a way for new profs to reach tenure. With most departments having a set headcount, it has always been the case with aging profs to slow down their efforts and ride the train to emeritus status. That makes for frusterating roadblocks to one's career. In the sciences, these are becoming more far between as ambitious profs don't slow down as there is still ground to achieve more personally through accolades, industry and professional society awards, etc. Most of the aged profs I've worked with in the past 5 years are still cranking out PhD students and bringing in funding.
> In a direct challenge to the hallowed tradition of tenure, Georgia’s public university system will now let its colleges’ administrations remove a tenured professor with little to no faculty input.
> The Board of Regents on Wednesday approved the new policy, which is the only one of its kind in the country, according to the American Association of University Professors.
> The Board of Regents, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, has maintained that the policy change will streamline the process of removing faculty members who do not adequately contribute to a university, and the 19-member board unanimously approved the new measure on Wednesday.
> Previously, the process for removing tenured professors included a peer review process with other faculty. Now, professors at 25 of its 26 public universities can be removed after consecutively failing two annual reviews. If a professor also fails to complete an improvement plan after the reviews, then that alone would be justification for termination.
> Last month, the board published a draft policy that included a clause stating that a tenured professor could be removed for reasons “other than for cause,” which generated concern leading up to the approval of its final policy.
> While that language is no longer in the approved policy,
The controversial element was removed and the policy is now: you can be fired if you fail two annual reviews, make no progress against an improvement plan, and your performance may now also be judged on the performance of your students.
Seems entirely reasonable. Accoutability cannot function with extreme 'tenure principles'/
So this process has worked for over a century producing one of the best academic systems in the world, but is no longer viable in 2021 because it is no longer possible to function with accountability?
That’s just a fig leaf for the real reason. Both the administrators of colleges and certain political groups have been waging a political fight against tenure for at least my entire life, probably longer. It seems like they’re pretty close to winning and professors are pretty close to losing.
I don't think tenure is the main cause of this, but I don't believe that the university system is in very good shape. It appears quite broken (massively increased costs and decreasing evidence of efficacy).
About 40+ years ago it was unquestionable that going to a university was the right choice for the vast majority. Now, it is far from clear.
> It appears quite broken (massively increased costs and decreasing evidence of efficacy).
Of course, it’s not like those skyrocketing costs are going to the professors. So it’s kind of strange to point at costs as a reason to strip power from the one group that’s probably not responsible for said costs.
Personally I’d argue that if anyone inside colleges bears blame for the poor state of the college system, it’s the administrators. But of course they’re the ones that benefit from this change.
(Naturally there are parties outside colleges responsible for the change in costs too, these things are complicated).
I agree with that part, but it isn't the professors causing this issue. Adjusted for inflation, professors make what they did in 1979. Blame administration, IT, and health care costs. But mostly administration.
Before the internet you needed a fully stocked library with excellent organization and archive retrieval, top quality professors who could (because of technology) teach at-most an auditorium full of people, and the ability to meet in person with other people knowledgable of the subject which previously required a centralized meeting place (the university).
All of this is now provided with superior quality by the internet. Now the only advantage of a university is signaling where you got accepted, networking with similar people for future jobs, becoming socialized by a culture of university-types, and showing you have the discipline to jump through 4 years of fairly arbitrary hoops. There is value to this, but is it worth $200k+?
Additionally, the cost of education is so high that students are customers now. Expelling too many students is simply infeasible given the enormous debt issued by universities for their massive capital expansions (buildings, gyms, stadiums), and huge bureaucracies. Students are dictating the terms of who and what is being taught, and schools must cater to it or risk reducing their flow of new applicants, which is the death-knell of so many smaller liberal arts schools in recent years. Tenure threatens the ability to shape the school to match customer expectations.
> All of this is now provided with superior quality by the internet. Now the only advantage of a university is signaling where you got accepted, networking with similar people for future jobs, becoming socialized by a culture of university-types, and showing you have the discipline to jump through 4 years of fairly arbitrary hoops. There is value to this, but is it worth $200k+?
You are leaving out some of the main benefits of going to a university. Specifically, that you have people to guide you through the process of learning; to point out the things that are important to learn, to be able to talk to them about the topics, etc. The internet has a lot of useful information, but there are things you don't get from it. Just like you don't master the English language by owning a dictionary.
> Now the only advantage of a university is signaling where you got accepted, networking with similar people for future jobs, becoming socialized by a culture of university-types, and showing you have the discipline to jump through 4 years of fairly arbitrary hoops. There is value to this, but is it worth $200k+?
Yes this is absolutely worth 200k if you do it at the right school. Getting the signals and network is the only way to get a white collar job.
I mean, that sounds like the normal CYA process to fire someone in the states. I've seen it used to fire all sorts of people who didn't deserve it on trumped up reviews and plan points.
>>>and your performance may now also be judged on the performance of your students.
What is stopping them from passing all students then thereby degrading the whole quality of education? Accountability is good but if other states don't implement this, GA is at a disadvantage as professors would prefer other states now. Among all disadvantages I can think of this rule, this is the most immediate.
That last sentence seems like the key. Tenured professors basically have not been held accountable, and they don't want to start being held accountable now.
Until this case, yes. From what I can gather, the goal of it is to allow for more abstract research that may draw criticism; a way to say "this person has been reliable and known reputable in this field for X time". Imagine a medical professor with tenure who wants to do research surrounding umbilical stem cells, or fetal research. Tenure, from my understanding, would give them some understanding or forgiveness for the controversial nature of their research topic.
I always felt student input should be a huge factor in teacher dismissals.
I felt my classmates were very fair with teachers. They didn't know the politics at the instition.
They didn't dislike a teacher because the course work was difficult.
They didn't like teachers who phoned their class in like an annoyance. They didn't like egotistical bullies which in my schools we all tenured teachers.
The notion of tenure wasn't developed to protect dead wood. It came about because historically it was often difficult to distinguish "fired for cause" from "fired for speaking out in ways that irritate the powers that be." The ability to fire people for cause is appropriate to businesses and startups, and even there we routinely hear about controversies where "for cause" is blurred together with "saying things that leadership didn't like." The tenure system was explicitly designed to prevent that, and yes, the "cost" of that system is that some dead wood will slip by -- but this has always been an acceptable cost. Our society relies on having a pool of people who cannot be easily silenced by their employers. We will suffer when those guarantees are weakened.
On a personal note: I'm a tenured CS professor and make less than half (often significantly less) than what my colleagues in industry make, for a job that often requires longer hours and a lot of travel. I also have had some experience with having my speech restricted by the administration [1] under the guise of "violations of University policy". As a tenured faculty member I stay because there is no other job where I can speak about anything I want, even if sometimes I say dumb things. My colleagues in industry can't do this -- some of them tell me they are scared to even "like" Tweets that criticize their employer. That's messed up.
To those folks who don't care about these broader arguments and think this decision is reasonable, that it "will improve faculty performance," even there you're wrong. If GA becomes the state that doesn't have tenure, all the best faculty will go to other states and/or to industry. Every state university already struggles to get top talent, and now GA has given themselves a huge hiring disadvantage. Whatever "productivity" benefits you might get from greater faculty control are going to be hugely outweighed by the fallout from this stupid (and obviously political) decision. The board of regents knows this, and they don't care.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/johns-hopkin...