(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...I’ve been discussing what a university professor does with his or her time, and have devoted a couple of posts to the question of what it takes to receive tenure. In doing so I have indicated that tenure is a guarantee of life-long employment by the academic institution, barring such extraordinary circumstances as moral turpitude on the part of the professor (it happens!) and financial exigency of the institution (it too, alas, happens).
I should say as well, though, that once one receives tenure it is no pure boondoggle for the rest of one’s life. At UNC, at least, we have a mandatory “Post-tenure Review” process every five years, where we who have tenure have to explain in writing what we have been doing in our teaching, research, and service since the previous review. If performance is not satisfactory, a plan of remedial action is implemented, and if things go from bad to worse, disciplinary actions can be implemented. But for most of us, we’re working our tails off all the time anyway, so there’s not a problem. I was at a social event at a friend’s house and a colleague from the Department of Religious Studies at Duke told me that earlier that dayshe had been praising flexibility in our time schedules that we have as university professors. As she put it, “We can work any 70 hours of the week that we choose!”
But why have tenure at all? Isn’t it a fairly ridiculous system, providing a life-long guarantee of a job? No one else gets this, in any other profession. Why should university professors get it? Isn’t it an outdated institution that leads to enormous abuse, counter-productively leading to the minimizing of effort by those who know they can’t get fired? Doesn’t it run completely counter to the principles of the free market that promote incentives and competition?
Speaking as someone who has been within the university system for a long time – thirty years now! – I have to say that I think that higher education is indeed an exceptional world (meaning it is unlike every other occupation/career/line of work that people engage in) and that the very nature of the enterprise *requires* the tenure system. Without it, we would be sunk.
And here’s why.
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, ARE YOU WAITING FOR CHRISTMAS???
Courts have actually drawn the analogy that a tenured faculty position is like owning the job. I suspect this goes back to the idea that universities were originally groups of faculty gathered together under some sort of charter. Having tenure in this way is like becoming a partner in a firm. I also see tenure as being what guarantees faculty continue to be able to set standards and determine the curriculum.
I also think that we too easily equate “free market” with the economic structure that arose with the Industrial Revolution. Industrial-scale production required lots of capital up front to build the factories, so you wound up with an owner, or perhaps a group of investors, whom everyone else ultimately worked for. Laws were often written to specifically eliminate the idea of group ownership or forms of collective rights to property such as grazing land, forests, salt flats, and that like. What we have today is not the result of purely market forces, but political choices, as well. An employee-owned firm like publisher W.W. Norton seems just as much a free market phenomenon as a private equity firm.
I can see journalists, to name just one other occupation, as people who could also benefit from tenure-like protections. Tenure is probably at the extreme end of a spectrum, but I would like to see more people have protections from potentially capricious firing, especially those in professions where they are required to exercise independent judgment. Unfortunately, too often today our debate is about taking others down. Union workers are able to negotiate better compensation than non-union workers, and so this is taken as evidence that unions are unfair!
What do you think of religious institutions with doctrinal statements that are binding on their professors? That would seem to functionally nullify the purpose of tenure. Peter Enns, Bruce Waltke, Tremper Longman III, John Schneider, to name a few, have recently lost heir jobs for suggesting that Genesis might not be literal. Mike Lincona was let go for suggesting that the dead did not literally March on Jerusalem as per Matthew. Should we trust scholarship coming out of such institutions?
I think you need to recognize that scholarship for what it is (and what it isn’t). If you are either committed to a particular theological view, or are unable to express judgments that go against it, that can’t help but affect your persprective in some fields of discourse (e.g., evolutionary biology or biblical studies)
Your argument in support of tenure to protect against damaging political influence makes perfect sense. However, how would this argument apply to the private US universities, who are largely autonomous financially and by governance from state government?
There I would say that the leaders of the university, if they want their institution to be a bona fide institution of higher learning, need to guarantee tenure for the same reasons. Otherwise their scholar-teachers are not free to follow the facts as they lead.
When I was on the job market, I was told at a couple of places, one a private school, that some in administration were worried about candidates with blogs for fear I might say something that would upset donors.
Wow. I’ve never heard that one.
Wonderfully explained!! Was unaware and uninformed. Thank you.
And when a tenured professor teaches something (like Intelligent Design) that goes against what pretty much all scholars in the field believe stuff like this is posted:
“The department faculty [of Lehigh University], then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm
I think a notice like this would be posted if a tenured professor at a major school started to teach that Jesus did not exist.
It could well be!
Great work Bart. Is there any work you have done that you were concerned about publishing/doing but forged ahead partly because of your tenured position or possibly any incidents in your pre-tenure days. Thanks for the ongoing insights.
No, I’ve never published anything “out of bounds” for the discipline I’m in.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Great post.
A little off topic, but I would like to ask: why such strong biblical scholarship in Germany? Everywhere I look there’s always some German scholar (either from the 19th or 20th century or perhaps even earlier) that made remarkable contributions in the field. Maybe they got tenure much sooner over there… :o)
It’s because the Protestant Reformation — that urged a return to the diligent study of the Bible — started in Germany, so that’s where the tradition of modern biblical scholarship began.
Prof. Ehrman, I just read your comments in Newsweek’s online article re: Dale Martin’s article on why Jesus was crucified. The article says you’ve changed your views on idea of Jesus being a pacifist. I don’t recall you discussing this topic on the blog other than touching a few times on Peter carrying a sword. The article mentions the problems that a couple of other scholars have with Martin’s paper, but nothing from you on that subject and as we faithful followers of the blog know you obviously have other ideas on why he was crucified.
Anyway, when you can get around to it, can you discuss your thoughts on Jesus’s pacifism? I’ve been wondering about this topic for a while. So many try to use the Bible to legitimize their beliefs in violence and use Peter’s carrying of the sword as some sort of justification (among other things of course).
I need to read the article! IN the meantime, yes, I am rethinking my views about Jesus as a pacifist, and I may indeed post on the issue.
Good. I’m interested in how you justify a possibly non-pacifist Jesus in light of various “sayings” (the Beatitudes in particular) and your recent blogs of an apocalyptic Jesus who taught that God (and/or the “Son of Man”) would be the one to bring about the destruction of the current (Roman era) age.
I may post on the issue — these are absolutely the key questions!
I believe that tenure should be given to teachers at all levels of public instruction. This is because of the same reasons: that boards of education around the country would eliminate anyone who did not teach to their beliefs. Already we see in the state of Texas a conscious manipulation of the learning through the control of the textbooks. Many true facts about American History have been “changed” to suit the views of those on the state board of education. In fact, because Texas is such a huge buyer of books, they often dictate what other states can buy because the publishers are “owned” by Texas. As fas as tenure goes, it still exists in most states at the secondary level, but there is a movement afoot to change the guarantee of a teacher. For too many reasons, it needs to be granted to secondary teachers so they can freely teach what they think is appropriate without having it legislated by a board of education. Do you think tenure is also important at the primary and secondary levels of education?
It’s a bit different there since the teachers tend not to be research scholars. But given the experience of Texas, one can see why the issue may be raised.
“Already we see in the state of Texas a conscious manipulation of the learning through the control of the textbooks. Many true facts about American History have been “changed” to suit the views of those on the state board of education.” Shakespeare
At your convenience, would you list those changes? Thanks
Whose views must be suited before textbooks are ordered?
Numerous facts have been distorted in the textbooks to illustrate a different view than what actually happened. You can Google those differences easily by asking the internet what those changes have been. It is common knowledge that these changes are significant, so just google the changes and they will come up.
“Already we see in the state of Texas a conscious manipulation of the learning through the control of the textbooks. Many true facts about American History have been “changed” to suit the views of those on the state board of education.” Shakespeare
At your convenience, would you list those changes? Thanks
Whose views must be suited before textbooks are ordered?
I posted a site for you to go to so you can read the kinds of changes they are making to the textbooks. I am not sure what else to do, but read it for you and list them and I am not about to do that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html
“But what do you think would happen if they were also entitled to remove from teaching positions anyone who taught views that they themselves were highly suspicious of and considered dangerous to the young people of the state?” Dr. Bart
By “they” do you mean the university administrators? If yes, I think they would hire teachers who weren’t teaching dangerous information to the youth of the state.
If “they” wanted to remove a teacher who held closely and taught the views of fundamental Christianity, shouldn’t they have the option of booting her?
That person would never have been hired in the first place.
“That person would never have been hired in the first place.” Dr. Bart
What if she had a spiritual awakening after she was hired?
I have taught biblical studies at universities for thirty years. In that time I have known many hundreds of biblical scholars, and have known about many hundreds of more — thousands, possibly. I have never heard of such a thing happening. You’re not talking about a spiritual awakening. You’re talking about someone becoming a fundamentalist after having learned everything that critical scholars learn and know. I’d be interested in hearing if anyone else has ever heard of that happening. I never have. (And for a good reason: once a biblical scholar knows what s/he knows, it’s really almost impossible to pretend not to know it any more.)
C.S. Lewis?
And what exactly is a fundamentalist?
He wasn’t a biblical scholar and had no training in biblical studies.
A fundamentalist is no fun, too much damn, and not enough mental.
Very good examples. Thanks for illustrating the problem. I still have no clue why so many oppose the teaching of textual and historical Biblical criticism, to say nothing of the teaching of evolution, so strongly. It makes us not take seriously anything else they say.. ..
Remembering the purge of moderate and liberal thought from some higher education institutions following fundamentalist take overs, I’ve difficulty with taking scholarship seriously that was not forged within an atmosphere of free interchange of ideas..
No doubt those fundamentalist had good intentions, but good intentions sometimes yield unwanted results such as loss of scholastic credibility as well as eccentricity resulting from a lack of opposing thought.
Thirty years later, their young people view those eccentricities as weird, and often bail out.
“Remembering the purge of moderate and liberal thought from some higher education institutions following fundamentalist take overs, I’ve difficulty with taking scholarship seriously that was not forged within an atmosphere of free interchange of ideas..” Arlyn
Would you get specific, please? Which institutions were over taken by fundamentalists after “the purge”?
“No doubt those fundamentalist had good intentions, but good intentions sometimes yield unwanted results such as loss of scholastic credibility as well as eccentricity resulting from a lack of opposing thought.” Arlyn
To which Ivy League school do you refer?
“Remembering the purge of moderate and liberal thought from some higher education institutions following fundamentalist take overs, I’ve difficulty with taking scholarship seriously that was not forged within an atmosphere of free interchange of ideas..” Arlyn
“No doubt those fundamentalist had good intentions, but good intentions sometimes yield unwanted results such as loss of scholastic credibility as well as eccentricity resulting from a lack of opposing thought.” Arlyn
Would you get specific, please? Which institutions were over taken by fundamentalists after “the purge”?
To which Ivy League school do you refer?
Nothing. No comment.
Strange isn’t it Dr. Bart? Fundamentalists took over those institutions but no one can say which ones they are. When some Americans are blamed for assaulting and taking over our institutions of higher learning without providing supporting facts when asked for them, is wrong. Very wrong. Hateful. That is a “racist-like” inflammatory accusation; the kind of statement which would never be acceptable if it was directed toward blacks or women, would it? That is disgraceful
Oh, there are lots of institutions they took over. For example, the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Yes, this is about what I thought, given what I’d heard you mention some time before. Otherwise – since I know nothing about the North Carolina legislature – it never would have occurred to me.
I still have a happy memory of a college-level night-school course I took on evolution, fifty or more years ago. The first thing the instructor said was, “To begin with, evolution is not a “theory.” Evolution is a *fact*. There are *theories* about how evolution works.” I wanted to stand up and cheer!
Well, actually, I suppose it is a theory, in the same sense that gravity is a theory….
“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.” In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”
Some have been trying to say that for a loooooong time.
You do know that he wasn’t a Christian?
No, I didn’t know that. How can anyone know what happened to him during his last few moments on this blue orb?
How long does it take to say, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
On an unrelated note, what do you think about this article featuring your friend Dale Martin. He’s says that Jesus may have been crucified because his followers were carrying weapons. Have you had any discussions about this with him?
http://www.newsweek.com/jesus-was-crucified-because-disciples-were-armed-bible-analysis-suggests-271436
I find some persuasive parts to it! (But not everything) I may post on it soon.
I attended a small SBC college back in the early seventies. There was one very liberal bible professor and another quite conservative. Of course, the liberal one received the brunt of negativism from the small community in which it was located. And I’m really quite surprised he didn’t get kicked out before he reached tenure. But he had one redeeming quality for administration—he was a terrific fund raiser. If you can’t get them to appreciate your ideas, they will always bow to cash flow! 🙂
Nowadays my alma mater wouldn’t think of employing even an evangelical professor who would be so brazen as to teach kindergarten textual criticism like the JEDP. I loved getting alternate viewpoints. If I were young and knowing what I know now, I would not again choose my alma mater. Tenure is an absolute necessity to keep thought processes from rigidity.
It isn’t acceptable to post that hundreds of ivy league students met to seek god, but it is fine to say fundamentalists purge liberal thought? I don’t understand
One post is talking about personal religious experience and the other is about the teaching of early Christianity in institutions of higher learning. There’s a big difference.
I can’t see a prob with firing those who embrase Marxist ideology, seeing as its economic creationism. If I can ask does tenure ever protect those you would want to get rid of? Like a scholar who says that revelations will unfold during this generation? Or a biologist who denies evolution and teaches this to there class?
Thank you
I think I’ll dedicate a post to this question down the line.
One other thing. Have you known of tunneled scholars who got slack because of there job protection? What factors do you think prevent dropping standards being a problem?
I don’t know of any offhand.