(23 votes, average: 4.30 out of 5)
Loading...You probably have heard about the extraordinary case of Nikole Hannah-Jones at my university (UNC-Chapel Hill). Offered a prestigious chaired position in the Department of Journalism, a chair that has always brought with it “tenure,” the university Board of Trustees, comprised, of course, of people who are not academics with expertise in journalism, chose not to grant her tenure, even though the department itself strongly advocated for it. I have never heard of that happening before.
Of course, given the fact that the Board has to give its approval before tenure is granted, it was completely within its legal right not to give its approval. But no one on the planet thinks it is an accident that Hannah-Jones – who is 20-year veteran journalist with the New York Times, a Pulitzer Prize winner for journalism (!), and winner of the (incredibly prestigious) MacArthur Genius grant – is famous for her work developing the “1619 Project” avidly promoting an alternative understanding of American history in light of the history of slavery and the contributions made by African Americans, AND that the legislature of the state of North Carolina (which, through a series of mechanisms, has ultimate oversight of higher education in the state: most of the Trustees on the board at UNC Chapel Hill are appointed by the Board of Governors of the entire UNC system who are elected by the state legislature) is comprised overwhelmingly of rightwing Republicans, many of whom are outspokenly opposed to providing alternative understandings of slavery, white supremacy, BLM, systematic racism, and so on.
In saying all this I believe I am simply stating the facts; different sides of the dispute will propose rather radically different interpretations of them. So I ain’t gonna go there in this context. INSTEAD I want to talk about the issue of “tenure” per se, and why it matters.
Even before this case arose, there have been questions for years about tenure for college and university professors. To an outsider, it can certainly seem very weird indeed. You mean you can’t be fired??
Tenure is the system by which (some) professors at most colleges and universities are guaranteed employment until retirement apart from serious infringement of widely accepted standards of ethics and / or competence. In other words, unless a professor commits a serious act of moral turpitude or becomes completely incompetent in fulfilling her or his duties to teaching and service, they cannot be fired.
But other jobs don’t work like that, right? If you’re not doing the job well, if you’re causing more problems that you’re worth, or if there are other issues, you can just be fired. Not for a college/university professor? So, what gives? Is this a good idea?
Oh boy is this a good idea. I can’t tell you how good this idea is. I don’t mean simply good for the individual fortunate enough to have tenure. I mean good for the educational system of our country. If we didn’t have a system of tenure, higher education would be torpedoed, and there would be no hope of salvage.
Here’s the deal. Professors are experts in their fields of study. At a place like UNC, which is a major research university, professors are expected not only to know a lot but to *produce* new knowledge. That’s what research does. We generate knowledge. And we teach what we know and learn. If that didn’t happen, then professors of geology, chemistry, physics, anthropology, history, religion, etc. would be teaching the same things they were teaching a hundred years ago. Think about that, for each of these fields. The progress of the human race DEPENDS on advances in knowledge. And the university system is one of the MAJOR places where these advances occur.
The problem is that advances can NOT occur if professors are bound to “toe the line” in setting forth views known and accepted widely in the general public. Here’s just one example out of a million: If the general public believes the world was created in 6000 BC and that life began with Adam and Eve, and that anyone who denies it is a danger to society – think of all the departments in a university that would simply cease to have a meaningful existence: they would include physics, astronomy, geology, biology, history, anthropology, religious studies. That’s just one topic. If a professor cannot teach what experts know/think/discover without fear of being fired, even if these views run counter to what people would like to think or that people in power want to promote, we’re screwed.
Freedom of speech is ESSENTIAL to higher education. If those in power could legislate (or in other ways enforce) what had to be taught, we’d be back in … well, back in 1984 (in the Orwellian sense).
For the past century that has been at least as true in my field as almost any other. Just speaking personally: if voters in North Carolina who have no training in the fields of New Testament or Early Christianity were allowed to decide what could and could not be taught in one of my courses, I would have been out of a job on day one. The findings of biblical scholarship are highly offensive to many people, including many very rich people, including many very powerful people, including many very politically active people.
Let me say, for the record, that I absolutely LOVE North Carolina and the University of North Carolina; I have had nothing but incredibly enjoyable, productive, and gratifying relationships with the people I know in university system – from members of the Board of Trustees, to high-level administrators, to mid-level administrators, to low-level administrators, to faculty colleagues, to grad students, to undergrads. I feel highly appreciated and well rewarded. On the personal level, I have almost no complaints.
But without a system of tenure, it would all be different. I would have to be careful and watchful. I know people in that situation around the country in higher education, who have to toe the line or be dismissed (they either don’t have tenure or teach in schools that require certain perspectives to be taught). For me to function as a bona fide researcher and teacher, I have to be free to teach what I have come to see as true after many years of diligent research, without fear of reprisal.
That’s why every tenure case matters and is so important to the working of the system.
Here is a brief overview of some widely unknown facts about tenure:
- Most faculty members at lots of colleges/universities do not have tenure. They are term-appointments (hired for a period, subject to renegotiation), adjunct faculty (termporary, often semester-by-semester appointments), etc.
- If a person is hired right out of grad school, into a position that has the potential of tenure (a “tenure-track” position, they normally have a six-year probation period where they more or less have to prove themselves worthy of tenure.
- In almost every institution of higher learning, the “proof” involves quality in three areas: research, teaching, and service (serving on committees, public outreach, etc.)
- Most places *claim* that those three areas are equally weighted, but they almost NEVER are. At some smaller colleges it’s all about teaching, or service, or both. At a research university, the HEAVY weight is on research. You can be the best teacher on the planet, but if you haven’t published, forget it. You won’t get tenure. You just won’t. Hey, it’s a RESEARCH university.
- Different departments have different standards for tenure. Some fields of study (psychology, sciences) it is all about articles in academic journals. In others (most humanities) it is about books and articles.
- In my department, the general rule of thumb is that the candidate, at the time of coming up for tenure, needs to have a book published in a respectable academic press (a serious monograph, not a trade book; not a text book), along with 5-7 academic articles in reputable journals, and evidence of other scholarly activities (reading academic papers at conferences; editing journals; encyclopedia articles; etc.)
- This is really tough. Some instructors just don’t make it. But everyone knows the rules of the game coming in, so it’s set up so there will not be surprises.
That’s why the Hannah-Jones case is so serious. If brought in with tenure, as has always happened with everyone else who was awarded this position, she could not be fired for offending anyone who did not appreciate her scholarship or views. To be sure, without tenure, she will certainly teach what her research has uncovered; but there is no assurance that the institution will allow her to do so. This is not good for the system.
Freedom of speech doesn’t just mean that you yourself get to say whatever you like. It means allowing people to speak when you DISAGREE with them. Tenure guarantees (except in extreme cases) the right to freedom of speech. Without it our entire educational system would be blasted into oblivion.
Thank you, Bart. I have given a version of this speech to countless people who have wryly told me that tenure “must be nice” without understanding its role in protecting academic freedom. I have watched the Hannah-Jones case from a distance and am pleased (but not surprised) at your advocacy for her tenure. It is always a problem when non-academic boards overrule the vote and will of a university’s faculty. I appreciate your explaining what’s at stake here and why this case matters not just to UNC, but to every college and university with a tenure system.
The Nikole Hannah-Jones case makes grim reading. Do you think the Republican legislator plans to replace retiring liberal-leaning academic staff with right-leaning thinkers over time, or is there any danger they will attempt to accelerate this process by forcing liberal-leaning staff out before retirement? I hope you are safe!
I don’t know. But I’m as safe as can be. I have tenure!
I salute your courage, willingness to stand for what is right and argue in a sensible manner to maintain the system best for the advancement of knowledge. You are probably aware that sometime power or authority can just bulldoze rights aside. I suppose there are others who will give their support for your initiative. Trust the best and rights will ultimately win.
Bart,
I don’t mean to be critical of you personally, when I say biblical scholars are guilty of “teaching the same thing they taught a hundred years ago,” because you are a rare exception generally to the rest of the pack, except on the reading of the crucial Gospel of Judas. There, as you know from nearly all my other posts, you have chosen to read this gnostic text as an orthodox one — and completely miss what is says!
Understanding that the character Judas is a totally fictional creation both here and the Bible is just the start. He is to be “REPLACED BY SOMEONE” (36.1-3) so that his ‘elements’ (Lance Jenott) can “return to their god [source].” This is why in answer to Judas’s question, “What will those baptized in your Name DO?” he says, “You will exceed the others, you will sacrifice the man [himself!] who bears me.” Is there another answer here? The lacunae before it are not sufficient to hide Jesus’s answer. This is it, and it is fatal to orthodox doctrine of sole savior. This man is a savior; he will rule over the heavenly races. He was James the Just.
The problem of American education is more about left-wing influence and the politicization of campuses. In CA they want to ban traditional math because it’s ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist.’
I have been chatting on Quora about 1619 type issues and why are we teaching our kids to be ashamed of their civilization. I am related to Cynthia Parker – her son was a Comanche warrior, perhaps the cruelest empire builders of all. And I am part Bantu – the people who drove out indigenous peoples, enslaved or killed them.
Not related to Aztecs thankfully, they often ate their imperial subjects, or the Mongols who killed 12% of all humanity. Even the ‘native’ Hawaiians were just imperial interlopers from Tahiti who ate, enslaved or drove out the indigenous Hawaiian people. Today it’s the new Nine-Dash-Line and Xi Thought of a new empire in the making.
None of this gets mentioned, and this proves where the bias is.
And this is interesting – as religion declines so too do the children, respect for authority, the work-ethic and confidence in our culture.
Could you give me some reputable references /discussions about traditional math being thought of as white supremacist?
My view is that all cultures have a lot to be ashamed of. If there’s a culture that thinks it is pristine and above reproach for having engaged in immoral acts, I’d say it’s a culture that in fact is not thinking.
I’m in California and they are referring to a manual for teaching math in a non-racist way that was mentioned in the state’s proposed mathematics framework. Some of the advice is…out there…but it’s not “banning traditional math” and merely meant to help teachers.
https://equitablemath.org/
Dr. Ehrman,
This is a fascinating issue. I don’t want to get into the politics of this case (people have very strong views concerning The 1619 Project). I am more intrigued by Hannah-Jones’s credentials. It appears to me she is a journalist by trade and not an academic. If my research is correct she is not a PhD, never taught advanced college courses, written scholarly books, advised students, particpated in scholarly conferences, and other scholarly ventures that you have described to us in the past. She appears to be a credible journalist by trade but not by academia. Is my research correct? Is this an unusual phenomenon in academia for someone to be considered to a tenured position without going through the tenure track?
Thanks, Jay
Yes, that was my first thought/question as well. But it turns out that that was true of most of the others who received this chair in this past. So the question is why she was singled out. (Journalism is a bit different from, say, chemistry or English or history, where pure academics are the criterion for promotion and tenure)
There is an old saying that when smart people do stupid things there are powerful forces at work.
Assuming for now that a person isn’t stupid just because he/she is a “right-winger,” we might reflect on the name “The Hussman School of Journalism.” That would be Walter Hussman, who donated $25 million to the school in 2019, and who emailed his disapproval of the appointment.
When the guy whose name is on your building and letterhead speaks, you’d best listen.
The BofG probably did the best the could to squirm out from between a rock and a hard place with the compromise of a five-year fixed appointment. Hannah-Jones accepted the position, though she was dismayed by the lack of tenure.
Money is the great motivator. Those who have the most money, control the show.
It’s never been about truth or freedom of speech. It’s a show, controlled by the money changers of this world.
Few professors seem to realize that they themselves are being controlled. They don’t ever notice, until that day they speak on the “wrong” subject.
The entire educational system is a conflict of interest, with the biggest money donors saying what can and can’t happen. That’s not “education”, it’s indoctrination. No different than religion.
When MONEY is the motivator behind decisions, the truth becomes secondary, and those influenced by those decisions end up living a lie.
What a despicable thing for the UNC-CH Board of Trustees to do: Offering an eminently-qualified person a position that traditionally has tenure and then blindsiding her by refusing her that honor. I assume that the UNC-CH faculty is in revolt now and that the student body has refused to attend class until this injustice is rectified. Or maybe not.
Off topic q – wouldn’t matthew’s use of the term “kingdom of uranus” cause problems for greek converts? And isn’t the likely change to be “kingdom of uranus” to “kingdom of god”, rather than the other way round?
I think you mean ouranos (took me a second!). Ouranos was a euphemism for God and so is normally seen as the replacement term.
But its also the just the name of the greek sky god.
I think recent greek pagan converts to christianity wouldn’t be comfortable speaking about the Kingdom of Ouranos. Wouldn’t they much prefer the Kingdom of Theos?
It’s the name word for “heaven.” Hence the name of the god. And no, many pagan Christians were perfectly comfortable talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s all over the place in writings by gentile Christians.
Matthew and Luke both have δυναμεις των ουρανων σαλευθησονται
whereas Mark has δυναμεις αι εν τοις ουρανοις σαλευθησονται
Mark’s version looks like it’s been re-constructed to avoid any implication that it’s the god Uranus that is being talked about.
The kingdom of ουρανων could be miscontrued
Why was she singled out.? Come now- I think we can make some reasonable assumptions.
Not disagreeing with a word of the above but based on discussions with friends and ex-classmates who have been in the Tenure wars (which, mercifully, I’ve never had to deal with) I’d like to add a couple additional notes.
1] As you describe the common popular (mis)understanding is that Tenure means “a Professor can’t be fired”; however, again as you point out, more correctly it means he/she can’t be fired *Without* *Cause*.”
2] And when discussing the relevance of the phrase “Without Cause” it is also important to keep in mind the economic aspects involved.
That is (setting aside for the moment any issues or perceived problems with the field that the Professor studies and/or views they might hold) the fact is that a junior faculty member without Tenure can be fired at the dropped of a hat, with no reason given. This in turn means that without the protection of Tenure any Professor would work under the constant threat of being replaced with a new faculty member who is just out of grad school —i.e. who is, frankly, probably much cheaper to employ.
Thanks — yes those are helpful additions. But no, it’s not possible to fire a faculty person without tenure at the drop of a hat. It’s possible, though, not to renew their contract without cause. I’ve never heard it happening though in order to buy someone else on the cheap, since if money were the issue the current person would simply be offered a lower salary.
Thanks for this, Bart. As a professor of business, the issue of tenure is also very important in how we participate in discussions with the senior leadership of the college. For those on term appointments the desire to stay “under the radar” doesn’t encourage discussion on issues of compensation and curriculum.
You may want to follow this up with a post on end of term student comments and their affect on tenure and promotion. I’ve recently spoke up at my institution that student comments shouldn’t be included in our business faculty review for tenure because only a handful of students have actually run a business (or even held full time employment). In my opinion, the focus should be more on peer review which can be more helpful.
The past two terms of my student comments have included students using expletives to describe me and specifically stating that I am personally the reason no tenure system should ever exist.
Your explanation demonstrates one of the many convincing evidences about the existence of God.
Mankind are given the freedom to choose and will be answerable on the Day of Judgement which will determine their final destination — Heaven or Hell . Some use logic while others use emotion and other influential factors to arrive at a decision. Angles were created without this privilege or disadvantage. However, to help mankind, God sent many prophets of God with the mission to guide mankind to the right path. Perhaps, this surprised experience will make you reconsider your stand about God.
Hmm, now that I am a resident of North Carolina for over a year, I can look up the names of my state senator and state representative and express my concern over this.
I just retired as a full professor (with tenure, of course) at a university in New York City, where I was hired 31 years ago to teach journalism. The only point I have to add to Dr. Ehrman’s is that my own university, like many others, did not know what they wanted in hiring a professor of journalism, and to a large degree still don’t know: almost all universities demand a Ph.D. for tenure-track positions, but also (for this position) want experience as a working journalist. This is an almost impossible combination to find, and they must in the end compromise and hire a working journalist who promises to finish a Ph.D. or a Ph.D. who doesn’t have many publications in the popular press.
The case of Nikole Hannah-Jones is a disgrace, and shows a clear bias, quite possibly of a racist nature, of UNC’s Board of Trustees, in my view.
California Leftists Try to Cancel Math Class – WSJ
MAO’S CULTURAL REVOLUTION IN AMERICA.
Oakland, Calif.
… not know how to calculate an apartment’s square footage… but the “mathematics” of political …
This will be the result if a proposed mathematics curriculum framework, which would guide K-12 instruction in the Golden State’s public schools
… a troubling document, “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.” This manual claims that teachers addressing students’ mistakes forthrightly is a form of white supremacy. It sets forth indicators of “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom,” including a focus on “getting the right answer,” teaching math in a “linear fashion,” requiring students to “show their work” and grading them on demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter. “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false… Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates ‘objectivity.’ ”
… The proposal’s agenda… for “social justice.” Math… is a tool to “change the world.” Teachers are supposed to adopt a “culturally relevant pedagogy,” which includes “the ability to identify, analyze and solve real-world problems, especially those that result in societal inequalities.” … develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo…
Interesting, and a bit strange.
,,,,, 6000 years ,,, uhhh ,,,,,,,,,, fortunately we do not hear much about this nonsense anymore here in Norway.
I’m sure my very old female friend would be offended. Maybe she, “The SogneWoman” has seen healthier days, but she’s fine, 10,000 years old when they found her 10 miles from where I live in Kristiansand, Norway. She is considered one of the oldest Caucasians, by some a prototype European ,,,,,,,, and in relation to the history of the earth ,, this is not even ancient, it is merely recent history ,,, and there are civilizations that are ten thousand of years older!!.
We can even with our own eyes, in perfect conditions look (almost without binocolars) more than 7000 years back in time watching a few some nearby star clusters , and with binocolars,,,muuuch longer back in time.
Dealing with truth, knowledge, perceptions etc ,,,,, is a difficult task, that I am sure you will have to deal with all the time.
Good luck!
Thanks for the great article.
Interestingly, I’m a physician with a faculty appointment at an Ivy League institution. Ironically my “main job” is being a physician and I can be the best physician that has ever walked this earth but if I don’t publish I’m shown the door at year 8.
Professor Ehrman,
How did you manage to last long enough at UNC to get tenure? Why weren’t you purged before you got tenure or denied tenure by those very powerful people who don’t like the things you teach?
Because the institution is a firm believer in academic freedom and the politicians have not been involved with the decisions.
How incompetent does a tenured teacher have to get before he or she can be fired? Could a teacher get tenure and then do just enough to get by? You have to understand that most of us do not have that luxury. As an IT worker, there are plenty of qualified people out there that could do my job if my work quality starts to decline.
At our place there’s a very serious “post-tenure review” that is required for all tenured faculty members ever few years; it evaluates teaching, research and service, and if a faculty member is serious deficient, steps are taken to seek for improvement and if it doesn’t happen … it can indeed lead to censure, reassignment to other duties, or even dismissal.
Bart, while it is true that different fields have different tenure requirements, they all demand truthfulness. If you read many of the articles about the 1619 project, there are a lot of factual disputes regarding the work that she did. See this article by other academics (https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140).
Your critics often malign you by attributing various motives to what you do, but your best defense is simply that you are pursuing truth wherever it takes you.
Ms. Hannah-Jones, at least in the eyes of her critics, is not behaving in a similar manner. Lacking years of peer review that demand that she get her facts right (regardless of the conclusions it brings her to), I find myself agreeing with the regents that immediate tenure for her work might not be appropriate.
Bart, I understand your points and do not on the whole disagree with the benefits of tenure. However, I’d like to point out that market dynamics are still in play in the Hannah-Jones situation. I view tenure as just one additional compensation tool available to colleges and universities that are intent on securing the best talent. If Hannah-Jones is a “rock star” (I don’t know her or her background) worthy of the highest levels of compensation to secure her services she is free to say “up yours” to the trustees and go elsewhere. I don’t doubt that politics are in play in the decision to not grant her tenure, but, surely the granting of tenure should have been a factor in her decision to accept the position or not. Or, am I missing something? If she stays at UNC-Chapel Hill without tenure, doesn’t that reflect perhaps just good business practice on the part of the board of trustees? If she walks, and she is a “rock star”, then perhaps the board comes under justifiable withering criticism.
Hello Dr. Ehrman, I very much have enjoyed listening to your podcasts and debates and appreciate the work that you are doing. I am new to New Testament studies and have a question. When multiple gospels record the same event, and they have the same gist but different details (Jairus’ daughter, the cursing of the fig tree, taking staffs or no staffs, etc.), I have heard it said that the variation in details supports the historicity of the gist of the events, because it shows that the events have independent attestation as opposed to copying or collusion.
This is not particularly convincing to me, because the multiple attestation could still be the result of copying, and the variation in details could be the result of the later gospel’s changing some details. I am wanting to know your thoughts on this. For events with similar gists but differing details, how do textual critics or historians decide between independent attestation and copying?
Yes, everytime we retell someone else’s story we alter it a bit. It doesn’t mean we know the story from a *different* source. With that logic, of course, you could not establish the sources for *any* traditions in antiquity, since if two accounts were word for word the same over the space of a hundred words but then changed a couple, you could say: SEE! Independent!
Can you explain how the case of Nikole Hannah-Jones is different from how you view the Jesus mythicists? Credible left-leaning historians like James MacPherson (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html) and Victoria Bynum (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/30/bynu-o30.html) have thoroughly explained why her theories ignore the norms of historical research just as the mythicists ignore the norms of your own field. It seems to me that she has gone beyond espousing an unpopular theory by pushing false narratives. Would you be opposed to Robert M. Price holding a tenured position in your own department given his views on the historicity of Jesus?
The difference is that she is a prominent journalist with incredible standing in her field (a Pulitzer, a McCarthur, a position at the NYT Times) but whose views are controversial and debated. That means some people disagree with them and others agree — including world respected authorities. The mythicists do not have standing in the field they discuss — there’s only one that I know of actually *in* the field they discuss; and they and present views that are seen by almost everyone who is in the field as hopelessly wrong (they aren’t controversial views among experts). So I’d say the differences in the two cases are *possibly* a matter of degree rather than kind, but it’s a significant degree….
I agree with your assessment of tenure’s free speech protections.
Sadly, there seems to be a double standard.
UNC trashed tenured professor Mike Adams by forcing him into retirement, culminating in his tragic suicide. Who in the university expressed outrage at his ouster? No one. Because the things he said were evil. He did not deserve defense. “Freedom of speech for me but not for thee.”
That was the prevailing view.
It’s easy to defend someone when most in the echo chamber laud and praise that person‘s opinion. But when the tables turn… silence.
Defending the view of the minority remains a seemingly insurmountable challenge in academia today (I personally feel speech protections should start upon hiring, but they don’t.)
As to Jones, she deserves the same protection Mike Adams was denied under current rules— if she were tenured… But of course she’s not (which makes the silence at Mike Adams’ ouster, subsequent suicide all the more poignant).
Although I feel giving Jones tenure makes about as much sense as allowing Ken Ham tenure at Harvard, if we really believe in free speech, we should allow every professor the right their opinions — if hired — without reprisal — from day one, including Adams and Jones.
Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project is clearly controversial. Significant parts of it have been convincingly refuted by respected national and international scholars. Many believe it presents a biased, inaccurate and false picture of our country and its founding. It’s travelling companion, critical race theory, has similarly been refuted in major parts. This is all a part of the culture wars that have been going on in our country for decades. Left leaning folks see things one way, right leaning people see things another way.
I was on the faculty of a small, fully-accredited college that did not grant tenure until just about the time I was ready to retire. It was ironic that at least on one occasion I was asked and did submit material in support of an application for tenure by a professor at an institution which did grant tenure. I was good enough to recommend someone for it (he got it) while not good enough to apply for it. Overall my experience as a faculty member was good, but since the institution began granting tenure I believe research has Increased (it is primarily a teaching institution but research is encouraged), and faculty morale has improved. Where there might be a question about someone’s performance, there is now a fair, established way for dealing with this rather than subjecting someone to what might possibly degenerate into arbitrary decision-making. Institutions that grant tenure, and do it properly, will always attract better quality professors than those that do not. i regret I never had the opportunity to experience it.
The university ought to be ashamed of its treatment of Nikole Hannah-Jones. Its implied disparagement of her previously-expressed conclusions by those unqualified to judge them demonstrates exactly why tenure is vital.
I’m delighted to see you standing up for that important principle and for treating her the same as previous holders of the chair.
The great medieval scholar Ernst Kantorowicz, who escaped Nazi Germany, resigned his position at UC Berkeley in 1950 when the Board of Trustees demanded that all continuing faculty swear a loyalty oath that they had never been associated with an “anti-American” organization: In his protest statement to the UC Academic Senate, he wrote that:
“There are three professions which are entitled to wear a gown: the judge, the priest, the scholar. This garment stands for its bearer’s maturity of mind, his independence of judgment, and his direct responsibility to his conscience and to his God. It signifies the inner sovereignty of those three interrelated professions: they should be the very last to allow themselves to act under duress and yield to pressure.”
Just as Bart stated, academic tenure is not about “getting to say whatever crazy shit you want and never be fired,” it’s about whether or not a country’s academic institutions get to produce innovative knowledge free of social and political pressure or whether academics have to advance their careers with papers titled “Why Our Dear Leader is Awesome: A New Survey of Adulatory Public Opinion.”
Didn’t realize there’s no link here –
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858
We have been discussing Nietzsche in regards this today. Where will the ‘death of God’ take us?
I notice that this article comes from the opinion section. While the news section of the WSJ is usually quite accurate, the opinion section is full of, to be kind, wackos.
I took a look at the document that the author finds so disturbing. I feel that he is distorting what it says in major ways. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Interesting. Well that makes sense of it then. It was rather hard to believe it was based on WSJ reporting…
Thank you for a thoughtful, courageous explanation.
Dr. Ehrman, Sorry if this question is too personal, but since you’ve written about it on the blog before, I’ll ask it nonetheless (just curious).
Were your political views closely related to your Religious views – back when you were a fundamentalist? I mean, did you change your ideological framework when you became a liberal Christian – and later Agnostic Atheist? Or were your political and Religious views completely separate?
I started out as conservative both religiously and socially/politically. I became more liberal socially/politically as an evangelical. My social-political views were pretty well set by the time I later became an atheist.
Hurray for UNC-Chapel Hill trustees! 1619 Project is tendentious, dishonest, incompetent, unserious. A well-deserved rebuke to Macarthur Foundation, Pulitzer and NYT. Let’s hope that more college boards show this kind of courage.
This is why Julian Assange was/is imprisoned, for reporting (journalism) truth against the most powerful nation. Oddly, big newsmedia picked up on the stories, NY Times, Washington Post and printed what he had said with no reproach from government and made excessive revenue from it. Throw in Snowden as well. Same story. There are times when certain individuals are singled out and are not supported/defended by the public,and mostly big media, for exposing ” illegal practices” by those in power. Maybe Prof., Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson would make good guest posts here.
Hello, Bart, you have an academic formation in linguistics?
I don’t have a degree in linguistics, no. I have training in a number of ancient languages and have learned to read a few modern ones.
Am I right in saying that most British and European research universities don’t have a tenure system comparable to the American system? My understanding is that for most British universities, once an academic is appointed a lecturer, the position is permanent unless the university runs into financial troubles and need to cut departments. Presumably this makes getting the lectureship in the first place more difficult. The path to lecturership involves holding research fellowships and other time-limited positions.
Most British universities are public institutions comparable to the American state universities. But as far as I know, the local and national governments have almost no role to play in appointing trustees who are then responsible for approving academic appointments.
I”ve always found the English system hard to understand, even though my wife taught in it and I have lots of friends teaching in it now! But I think that’s right that they don’t have tenure per se.
The case of Nikole Hannah-Jones is very troubling because it replaces academic self-governance with political ideology and that is indeed chilling. Early in my career I became a tenured faculty member at a large public, research-oriented university, but left shortly thereafter for the private sector. Otherwise, I might still be at that university today, 40 years later. I’m of two minds about tenure. I understand the academic freedom perspective. But offering tenure to a 35-year-old research wiz is like giving a 10 year, $240M contract to a 32-year-old major league slugger. You’re rewarding them for past performance and what they might accomplish in the coming years. But it’s likely their performance will trail off in the out years. The gamble is whether they start hitting .225 at age 33 or 41. Do they stop producing research at age 45? 55? 65? Tenure is a guaranteed contract with no out clause for diminished output. I’d opt for 10-year renewable contracts. You might lose a superstar free agent researcher to a rival university, but you’re not stuck with Albert Pujols.
We do have post-tenure reviews as well, to deal with those who basically stop producing, with ways to make ongoing productivity in their own interest. The problem with a ten-year clause would be the same as no tenure at all. I may well have been dismissed 22 years ago, in that system, despite my productivity and success in the classroom. THere certainly is a downside to tenure, but without it — given what it is we do (as opposed to major leaguers) — the entire concept of free expression and exploration of new (and often troubling) ideas would be shot. I wish Galileo had had tenure!
Let’s not forget that Nikole Hannah-Jones recieved her MA from UNC-Chapel Hill. Shame on them for treating one of their own this way.
What are other faculty saying? Is UNC faculty doing anything in support of Dr. Hannah-Jones aside from blogging? Thanks.
Massive protests and letterwriting
I generally approve of the idea of tenure, once one has demonstrated a profound grasp of the subject at hand and the competence to do research and to teach about it. It seems to me that pretty much all of the academic world is under attack today, especially in the areas of the Humanities. (I was an English major who never went on to teach in part because even then I could see where things were heading. Although I chose a very different profession, where I have done quite well, I use my humanities training every day, both in my work and in the broader aspects of my life.)
This gets to be a trickier issue if the person being denied or granted tenure were someone who I did not happen to think had really warranted it (as, I think, the person in this particular case has). People regularly complain about religion having been weaponized, but it seems to me that everything has been weaponized by politics, and decisions about what is right and wrong are too often determined by an understanding of the ultimate outcome rather than the specific position on the particular issue and the context.
Yes, tenure really is only for those who deserve it. The policies in research universities is invariably that panels of experts in the field make that determination. Once it is made by politically appointed boards, that’s when trouble creeps in. (The school of Journalism, in this case, recommended tenure, as they had for all the previous holders of this position.)
As an emeritus physics professor, I agree completely with your views on this case. The fact that this highly credentialed journalist could not get trustee approval is disheartening and a blot on UNC. Lets hope the situation gets fixed in the short or long term.
I have looked at the website “https://equitablemath.org/” that was alluded to as an example of problems with approaching racial issues in California in the teaching of math. Indeed, I did find much over the top ranting about race in concert with some good advice in teaching mathematics, particularly to students who have not had the advantage of an appropriate background. But isn’t listening to all viewpoints a GOOD thing? I would be disappointed if this were the only reference for teachers of math, and do hope it would be balanced with other material. I also think in general our culture needs to come to terms with the very terrible historical racism in all its aspects. But shouting at each other in any field is not the answer.
And denying tenure to someone who helps us all face up to historical truth is just shameful.
Finally: Tenure Vote for Hannah-Jones
UNC Chapel Hill trustees will hold a special meeting Wednesday, one day before the end of six trustees’ terms, reportedly to vote on tenure for Nikole Hannah-Jones.
By Colleen Flaherty
June 29, 2021
The board’s Monday announcement about a special meeting included no details about the agenda. But quoting two unnamed trustees, NC Policy Watch reported that the board will hold a vote on tenure for Hannah-Jones.
Lamar Richards, Chapel Hill’s student body president and therefore an ex officio trustee, petitioned the board last week to hold a special meeting to discuss the Hannah-Jones case. He would have needed five other board members to make similar requests to force such a meeting, but it’s unclear if that’s why the meeting was scheduled. The board chair can call a special meeting at any time.
Read more at:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/06/29/long-last-tenure-vote-nikole-hannah-jones?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=6bbf8c0a5c-DNU_2021_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-6bbf8c0a5c-198427213&mc_cid=6bbf8c0a5c&mc_eid=06b20dae1b
Awesome, Nikole Hannah-Jones ends up with tenure 🙂
Hannah-Jones has been given a lifetime sinecure—a position with immense financial benefit requiring little actual work—amid a relentless campaign to promote her and the racialist falsifications of the 1619 Project. With the institutional backing of the New York Times, she has been elevated into superstar status, despite the vast disconnect between the accolades which have been piled on her and what she has accomplished.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/02/hann-j02.html
Hi Bart:
You say “ If the general public believes the world was created in 6000 BC and that life began with Adam and Eve…”. Just wondering why you use this example? Is it a common belief at UNC or in academia? Have you met many people who believe this statement? Do you know any people who stated this in history and how widespread it was believed?
Thanks.
Yes, I do know people who think this. Many of my students do not believe in evolution, even at a major research university, and lots of 0 Christians believe in a young earth. ANd there is little to prevent fundamentalists from becoming politicians who hold the purse strings of public universities. Prior to the early 20th c., of course, this was a standard view throughout CHristendom.