Is the "vast majority" of tenured academia really "dead wood" in America? Isn't this the same kind of thing being said about schoolteachers in the "education reform" debate in this country - that K-12 schools are full of "bad teachers" who can't be fired because of unions, etc., etc.? How real are either of these estimates which wield considerable rhetorical power?
As a recently tenured faculty member, seeing my workload and responsibilities go up significantly since getting tenure, I'm genuinely puzzled by the "dead wood" phenomenon. We hear about tenure leading to stagnation all the time, but if the problem was so widespread, wouldn't US universities be far less successful than they have been? Sure, the problem of "dead wood" is real, and I'm guessing most of us can think of someone who fits that category. But how many of the tenured professors you know would you classify as "dead wood"? What percentage? Is it high enough to constitute a "vast majority"? That said, I like the idea of an "academic's bill of rights and responsibilities"... although the original bill left out the "responsibilities" part! I can see most academics endorsing the idea - but surely the code has to apply to administrators who run universities too, no? Madhu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Madhusudan Katti Associate Professor of Vertebrate Biology Department of Biology, M/S SB73 California State University, Fresno Fresno, CA 93740-8034 Email: [email protected] Tel: 559.278.2460 Fax: 559.278.3963 Lab: http://www.reconciliationecology.org/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Monday, May 23, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote: 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 >
