If professors tell students that newspapers are poor sources of information, Ron Grossman’s April 6 Perspective article on tenure is a good example of why. Grossman prefers anecdote and assertion over investigation and analysis, running through all the familiar saws about employment protections for teachers. Had he taken the time to report the facts or to seek alternative viewpoints, he could not have been so glib. It is important, then, to set the record straight.
First, the suggestion that tenure is the cause of high tuition simply is untenable. Faculty salaries today are about the same in real dollars as in the early 1970s. Though it is true that teaching loads have dropped somewhat, corrections need to be made for class size, which has gone up in many institutions. A bigger source of tuition hikes is the explosion of administration and “student services” (from designer dormitories to psychological counseling) in the last two decades. Consequently, smaller portions of university budgets today are spent on direct instruction. But administrators and critics like Grossman choose not to shed light on this issue.
Second, Grossman implies that incentives for performance disappear after tenure decisions, which also is not true. The research on faculty productivity does not support this assertion (there is little change after tenure). Salaries at the vast majority of institutions, moreover, are tied directly to performance, including teaching quality. Unproductive faculty members with tenure may be protected from immediate termination, but they get lower salaries, are denied promotion and often are shunned by students and colleagues.
These cases are not common, however. And some eventually choose to leave the academy altogether. Grossman does not discuss such voluntary departures, which are not highly publicized, as a courtesy to individuals involved.
Finally, Grossman suggests the only argument in favor of tenure is academic freedom (to teach and speak one’s mind). In fact, there are other sides: One is economic. A university is not a business in which decisions are made by executives; rather, it is a collegial enterprise with key decisions (on curriculum and personnel) made by the faculty. Economists have demonstrated that such organizations function optimally with protection for employment, so that self-interest is minimized.
Yet another argument in favor of tenure is linked to academic standards. As educational institutions undergo market pressures to deliver credentials more readily, the faculty stands as a bulwark against the erosion of performance standards. Tenure enables faculty members to play this role without fear of reprisal.
There are many other things to be said about the tenure system, but such a commentary goes beyond the scope of this reply. I predict, however, that if university officials and others like Grossman persist in attacking tenure, the result will be nationwide unionization for college faculty members (threats of a union recently forced Minnesota regents to back down on proposed changes in tenure). If that occurs, everyone will look back on the current system of tenure as a time when higher education was simpler and possibly a good deal more reasonable.
