HEADLINE: Tenured and Untouchable . . . SECTION: comment PUBLICATION DATE: 12/3/96 By William H. Wallace The Post's editorial ["Touching the Tenure Button," Nov. 14] calls attention to a pervasive problem in our system of higher education. It is encouraging to note that cracks are beginning to appear in the wall. Out of this debate must come a new system of accountability and uniform and enforceable standards of performance for tenured as well as non-tenured faculty. The elimination of this outrageous system as we have known it would enhance the efficiency and productivity, as well as the quality of higher education in America. As the academic community attempts to downsize and make itself more relevant to the world it serves, tenured faculties are able to stand in the way of badly needed changes and improvements in curricula -- changes that are necessary responses to the changing needs of the community. As one who has spent a number of years in universities -- as a faculty member and as dean of a business school (Old Dominion University) -- as well as many years in the world of business and finance, I have seen academics from inside and out. I believe the tenure system is a cancer on our system of higher education which perpetuates incompetence, ignores unproductive performance and exacts an enormous cost from taxpayers and other supporters of our educational institutions. In my role as dean, I found that, the faculty fought every proposal to improve the academic program -- not because of substance, but simply because the proposals represented change. Change in itself is a threat to faculty members in an environment that does not demand accountability in terms of either teaching quality or research output once the tenure decision has been made. Personal and professional ethics also suffer in the process. It was my experience that faculty members under circumstances without effective review and accountability can be, and often are, neglectful and sometimes even abusive of their students -- the paying customers. Financial circumstances in many public and private universities today require downsizing, which could yield positive results by both consolidating and upgrading programs. Yet university presidents are powerless in the face of belligerent faculties that threaten them with votes of no-confidence. All too often, university governing boards simply look for the course of least resistance, and do not back those presidents who are trying to meet mandates of change and efficiency. Recent events suggest, however, that this may be changing. Members of the academy react to proposed changes in the tenure system with varying degrees of outrage. The first argument heard is that tenure preserves academic freedom, and indeed, we are hearing it today. In fact, the system works in quite the opposite way. Rather than being protected by it, young and promising non-tenured faculty members often find that if their views are not in sync with the tenured members of their faculty, they cannot obtain tenure. In this way, tenured facilities control the ideological identities of their departments. The second argument of faculties is that tenure ensures the sovereignty of the faculty in matters of university governance. But the practical effect of this situation is that it enables the faculty to control and, if it wishes, prevent change. Both are perverse uses of tenure, in my judgment. State legislatures and university governing boards all over the country should wake up to what they are paying for and look at the value received. Even if currently tenured members were grandfathered, faculties of the future should be required to conform to a system of employment contracts under which their performance is evaluated before their contracts are renewed. The academic profession, like any other, should reward its outstanding performers. It should make their efforts worthwhile and encourage their professional development. But like other professions, it should recognize market and societal demands for change. It should also cull out its nonperformers, who have given higher education a bad image and who hide under the lifetime employment protection of tenure. The writer, an economic and financial consultant, is a former college teacher and administrator. --- Copyright 1996, The Washington Post. This story is from the Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be archived or redistributed. For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Corporation ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
