Rather than a knee-jerk defense of tenure as a holy system/right, why
not accept that there IS a problem and consider alternatives?
I have recently proposed replacing it with an "academic's bill of rights
and responsibilities" - a code for faculty including a list of reasons
one CAN'T be fired (like teaching controversial topics, being overtly
politically active, doing controversial research, etc.) and
responsibilities including a list of reasons they CAN be fired (poor
treatment of their employees/studentechs/postechs/staff, lack of
productivity, lack of general work ethic and not taking care of their
job responsibilities).
It is a fact that tenure doesn't serve it's purpose - I know of no more
silent, pacified tight-lipped "go along to get along" group of
professionals I have experienced than tenured professors - so much for
tenure creating academic freedom. All it does is keep dead wood afloat
- protect tenured profs in cushy positions from having to mentor their
students, from having to work hard and try to make as many discoveries
and innovate as much as possible (even seek applications, marketable
ones?, for the fruits of their research God duth forbid) - WHILE
starving many OTHERS who DO have the passion, drive, talent and interest
in aggressively doing all of the bullet points of a prof's job
description, doing them well and doing a lot of them - from having
careers at ALL.
It's a common problem in America: too much investment in too few, while
the vast majority languish, or are forced to serve those few. NOT a
recipe for innovation or a healthy system for science!
Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
On 5/23/2011 10:36 AM, Ganter, Philip wrote:
Aaron,
I have read your recommendations for improving science funding. I
think you are taking a band aid approach to the problem. Peter
Lawrence has suggested a much more fundamental change which would, if
adopted, correct many of the faults addressed in your document and
might be a viable alternative to the current system. See:
Lawrence PA (2009) Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of
Scientific Research. PLoS Biol 7(9):
e1000197. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000197
The heart of research is sick: a conversation with Peter Lawrence.
2011. Lab Science No.2 pp. 24-31
I also think your dismissal of tenure is a fundamental threat to the
university system. I have watched as administrative incompetence has
damaged the careers of more than one young scientist. Tenure is the
only bulwark protecting academic freedom and shared governance (both
as defined by the AAUP) and it is vital for maintaining quality in
higher education. These institutional values are, in many instances,
the only means of making administrations accountable. Of course, with
academic freedom and shared governance comes the responsibility to
participate in governance. Although I have no data to back this up,
I believe that I have noticed a tendency for scientists to feel that
their only duty to their institutions is to get grants, do research,
and mentor students. Committee assignments are denigrated as a waste
of time. Tenure, for these scientists, is considered unnecessary as
the ability to bring in grant money is the scientist's path to
success. Anything that interferes with the time needed to play the
grant game is waste. This attitude is short-sighted and wrong. We
then must leave the institution in the hands of professional
administrators. They are a valuable group but they often do not have
sufficient expertise or experience to make good decisions on their
own. Sure, tenure has problems but, like democracy, it is a system
that persists in spite of its shortcomings because it is better than
all the rest. Do not forget what was built by our academic ancestors
with tenure as a fundamental building block. That which made it
valuable then is still relevant today.
Phil Ganter
Tennessee State University
