Louis and Tips: I'm going to have to side with Joe here. I find that statements to the effect that tenure is stiffling of creativity etc are a) short-sighted, b) without evidence beyond anecdote, c) are often self-serving and ignorant of situations beyond one's own limited experience (I said often, I am not questioning Louis' sincerity). If one examines the whole of the evidence (starting with, for example, the history of the AAUP) one clearly sees that the sharper edge is the one Joe mentions. I have, for example, expanded my own creative energies and developed new courses far afield of the limited scope I was willing to pursue before tenure (mere anecdote I admit but similar to the evidence presented on the other side). Another part of that sharper edge is revealed when there are attempts to remove faculty without cause. For example, on our own campus there was the discovery of a financial crisis in our very recent past. Most of the "noise" of a constructive nature on campus came from the tenured faculty. Of course were a few untenured facutly that choose to speak up but they did so generally expressing fear of reprisal and more often expressed themselves through the tenured faculty. The argument that tenure stiffles is certainly defensible through "person who" statistics and anecdote. We all know of someone who's gotten tenure and kind of retreated into a shell. But the argument that this is justification for eliminating tenure rather than intelligently and carefully studying the situation and fixing an already good practice is the same kind of silly uninformed assessment as the governments' stand that one should eliminate drugs (meaning those not promoted by the pharmaceutical establishment) because there are examples of mis-use of them. It just isn't good scholarship or informed debate. Respectfully, Tim Sheraon
-----Original Message-----
From: Hatcher, Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 2/29/2004 10:09 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Cc:
Subject: tenure and creativity
Hello Louis and TIPS,
I think that tenure, like practically anything else, has at least
two edges. Certainly it can lead to uniformity (before one is tenured, at
least) and certainly some people can choose to coast afterward.
On the other hand, I see it as one of the trade-offs for the fact
that the profession pays pretty poorly. We're pretty smart people, despite
our flaws, and we could probably make a lot more money elsewhere, doing
other things. Choosing this career won't make us rich, but it has an offer
of job security that one rarely finds elsewhere, and that type of peace of
mind has a certain amount of value in my world.
I find the argument that tenure dampens creativity to be tenable
only before tenure is bestowed, if even then. Having tenure allows one to
be very creative and to follow one's ideas in research and teaching. If
there are pressures toward uniformity before tenure, it is difficult to see
them becoming less important if tenure wasn't part of the system. I know
that many of our colleagues on this list function on one- or multi-year
contracts. I would like to hear from them regarding whether they see that
system as promoting more creativity or better teaching than one involving
tenure.
Joe Hatcher
Psychology
Ripon College
Ripon, WI 54971
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
