ACADEMIC TENURE IS USEFUL, IF YOU CAN EARN IT.

Inside the Beltway's Steven Taylor, a Troy political scientist, offers a refresher on what might go wrong if a state government attempts a restructuring of personnel policies in the universities it funds.  The short form is, if you substitute "critical race theory" for the "socialism" that was a bugbear to legislators long ago, the legislative management of curricular matters remains a bad idea.

Setting aside the fact that there are legitimate arguments to be had over tenure, what [Texas lieutenant governor Dan] Patrick is doing here illustrates why tenure needs to exist. He is explicitly stating that because an idea he and some of his political compatriots don’t like might be taught, he wants the state to punish anyone who might teach about that idea. Not only is the notion that politicians ought to be targeting specific ideas that they don’t like antithetical to a core purpose of education, but it is also blatantly authoritarian. This is all made the worse as Patrick and his ilk have no idea what “critical race theory” is save that they don’t like the political implications of deep examinations of America’s history regarding race.

I've seen nothing in the past six years or so to convince me that the position I took then is in error.

Although I still maintain that academic freedom too often serves as cover for trendy grievance scholarship, and that the diversity boondoggle is creating an academic environment devoid of intellectual diversity, none of which is consistent with the public interest, I must also object to Missouri's board of curators conceding powers to a legislature that will almost certainly be used in a situation where curricular integrity, rather than excessively zealous protesting, is at stake.

The reason for the "if you can earn it" in the post title arises when we contemplate the academic job market. "If Texas were to eliminate tenure for new hires or to create laws that allow the revocation of tenure based on what ideas one discusses then it would disadvantage itself in terms of attracting faculty."  That's true in the abstract, and it might be valid among universities competing for a place atop the U. S. News league tables.  It's an abstraction for search committees constrained, whether by legislative stinginess or by falling enrollments, to replace three tenure line positions with one, or to replace tenure track faculty with contingent faculty.

Yes, tenure contracts bundle lower return with lower risk.  "There's an argument in labor economics over whether the opportunity to gain tenure protects people whose skills might otherwise be rendered obsolete rather quickly and lowers their salaries relative to those of people who bear all the risk of immediate discharge in case of obsolescence, or failure."  Here's how Professor Taylor puts it.

From the point of view of the faculty, the idea of the chance at tenure is part of their compensation package–there is a trade-off of security for more pay. The brutal nature of the academic job market (for anyone other than the top of the top) is such that having to prove oneself over a particular set of years in exchange for not having to go back on the market unless one wants to is appealing in ways that are difficult to fully give justice to here. The willingness to accept what will be a fixed salary with modest, at best, increases over a career in exchange for enhanced job security is simply a key part of the appeal of these jobs that cannot easily be discarded without consequences to colleges and universities (more on that in a moment). It is also hard to overemphasize that the culture of this profession dictates that the key goal is a tenure-track job with the acquisition of tenure as proof of value after the probationary period (along with promotion to Associate Professor). Taking that away because some politicians don’t want Prof X talking about subject Q is more major of a blow to the structure of American academia than is appreciated.

In passing, he notes that changing the terms of tenure changes incentives to serve the institution.

I would note, too, that a huge chunk of the work (beyond teaching) of a college/university is done by the faculty and tenure creates long-term buy-in that has real value. (If I know I am going to be at State U for a long time, that incentives certain kinds of work that I might not engage in if I don’t have the time perspectives that tenure creates).

There might be a less appealing side to that argument, in which tenured careerists might devote inordinately much effort to committees and institutional politics.  That is, if there are any tenured careerists left.  That's where his essay breaks down.

Do away with tenure and those schools will have to pay more to retain more.

There are really only two ways to get a major increase in income in academia: change schools or go into administration.

Now, I could leave and look for another job, and I might. But keep in mind that one of the reasons I don’t is because I am tenured and giving that up is a risk. Most schools don’t want to risk giving tenured status to a new hire unless a person is a superstar of some kind. So, again, tenure is part of the broader compensation package and actually has benefits to the institution granted it, not just to the holder of tenure. Note that in this scenario the university does not have to offer me more money to stay, I decide to stay because tenure is too valuable to give up.

Note, too, that if a lot of the faculty are in this boat, it keeps overall labor costs down. If faculty were moving around all the time, each new hire that replaced someone who left would have to be higher, causing increases in personnel budgets. Sure, if everyone, everywhere got rid of tenure a new equilibrium would be reached in the broader labor market for faculty, but there would be definite short-to-medium term issues. It would change the labor market for faculty in ways that people like Patrick simply don’t bother to think about.

Or, perhaps, the lieutenant governor has the employment-at-will model in mind, and relies on anecdotal, or perhaps more systematic, evidence of the shift to a more contingent faculty already well under way.