Robert Steinbuch and Joshua Silverstein have a call to arms at the Martin Center to protect academic freedom in Arkansas. We are unconvinced by their arguments. It is entirely possible that we should be worried about what is going on in the the Natural Sate [really] but we are not convinced.
Bob and Josh start out with:
That threat, however, is of a type [tenure rules] that normally doesn’t receive public attention. The press typically writes about speech codes and political interference with research on controversial subjects, but as serious as those threats are, they are nothing compared to that posed by central administrators.
We are not convinced. The ability of central administration to influence decisions on faculty and curriculum varies from school to school but it is almost always limited. Shortly thereafter they say:
The purpose of academic freedom is to protect freedom of speech, thought, and expression in the university setting so that learning and knowledge can flourish. Tenure is the primary mechanism by which academic freedom is ensured. It prohibits the termination of faculty for any reason that could plausibly be used to stifle academic speech and inquiry. These protections recognize the critical role of professors as truth-finders and truth-tellers.
Well, particularly with respect to the bold part, no. The tenure decision is largely made by faculty with variations from school to school. Negative tenure decisions have been made by faculty to stifle academic speech and inquiry. Such decisions are largely made by the faculty. Once a faculty member has been tenured they can only be removed for cause. Incompetence is not a cause. It is a challenge to write rules that help weed out incompetence without jeopardizing academic freedom but one we need to consider.
Another way to think about it is the last sentence in the second quote. Are professors regarded as truth-finders and truth-tellers? Largely no. Later they say:
Unfortunately, in recent decades some university administrators have engaged in an all-out assault on academic freedom by seeking to (1) replace outspoken full-time faculty with part-time adjuncts, and (2) gut the rules governing academic freedom and tenure.
There are more part-timers [but that might be due to for-profit schools] but we are unconvinced that the full-time faculty is outspoken and the part-timers are not. It could be that the administration can do something about part-timers and this is why we see more examples of them.
They cite some reasonable issues about the proposed rules. They also suggest some silly stuff like it will hurt recruiting. We have been involved in recruiting faculty for decades. We thought of tenure process as a selling point for our school but nobody was ever convinced by our arguments. Location, fit, and money are a the driving forces in faculty decisions. Tenured deadwood is a big problem with fit in recruiting because the deadwood won’t change courses to accommodate new faculty and can’t help them with research.
Tenure as currently constituted is not getting us to faculty who are truth-tellers and truth-finders. As conservatives we need to be reluctant to change established systems. But in this case the system is highly ineffective in reaching goals. Many folks have reminded us that “it” can always get worse and measured change makes sense. Although Bob and Josh approvingly reference an overwrought article in Slate, Wisconsin is not a bad model.