Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, August 26, 1995 TAG: 9508290002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CARROLL SMITH
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Unfortunately, this statement reveals more about the limits of his information than it does about reality. Throughout history, people have been persecuted in various ways for unpopular beliefs - many of which have later proved to be true or better than the prevailing ideas. Examples that come to mind are Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Anatole France and James Joyce.
In former times, persons were condemned for religious and scientific deviations from accepted doctrine. Today, it's more likely to be questions of political, social and economic orthodoxy. One just has to look back some 40 years to the bad old days of Joe McCarthy, loyalty oaths and all of that. To be labeled a Marxist, communist, socialist, homosexual or pro-choicer is enough to put one on the list of undesirables in many places, including colleges.
Tenure was first started to protect productive thinkers who might be ahead of their times from arbitrary sanctions and dismissal just because they might disagree with the power structure of their institution or that of society in general. For more than 70 years, tenure guidelines of the American Association of University Professors have been endorsed by most institutions of higher education in the United States. These guidelines allow for the dismissal of tenured faculty members for three reasons:
Incompetence. Immorality. Financial exigencies.
Since these actions are currently available to college administrations, why do they need more discretion to remove faculty members? Perhaps the answer is provided by one board member, Ellen Nau, who is quoted as, ``being against the concept of tenure; it's causing a few problems in [these] economic hard times.''
Indeed, I've personally heard college administrators express the wish to be able to hire two inexperienced faculty persons in place of one older, experienced professor who may well be paid as much as two beginners. Will ``economic hard times'' lead to a disregard for qualifications altogether? Will any warm body who can occupy a classroom at a cheap price become the college professor of the future? Looks that way.
Another provision in the AAUP guidelines is for a probationary period of several years before a professor is allowed to apply for tenure. During this period, he or she can be dismissed, after suitable notification, for any reason. This does happen. However, people have been granted tenure who didn't deserve it. Administrative favoritism and other considerations aren't unknown on college campuses. I've known tenured professors that I thought were stupid, lazy, mean, nasty and loaded with any number of undesirable characteristics. I would have dearly loved, if I had been a college administrator, to have expelled them forthwith. Tenure would prevent this.
Then why have it? Because it's the price that must be paid to prevent harassment of the possible weird genius who may be the famous innovator of the next generation. And also, I might be wrong in my evaluation. In any case, the way to handle this problem is to be careful in granting tenure in the first place so that it's given only to those who deserve it.
The very nature of higher education involves ideas and actions that are (we hope) creative, novel and controversial. Many persons in our country don't like dissent and unconventionality. Given the power, these people would design a curriculum that would allow no deviation from the true faith as they see it. Some of these people will become college administrators. Although natural science (except for evolution) is largely free of controversy, we must allow artists, novelists, poets, philosophers and social scientists to do their work - free of the threat of censorship or dismissal. No one can do good work while big brother looks over his shoulder.
Margaret Miller, associate director for academic affairs for the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia, said that tenure should be ``combined with the capacity to evaluate faculty rigorously.'' In addition to being gobbledygook, that will certainly be the line that's taken by all administrators. That is, that we're all just good old boys and girls acting in a ``collegial fashion'' to do everything in everyone's best interests.
If tenure is abolished or limited under some lofty sounding rubric, it follows as night follows day that creative and crafty administrators will be able to remove any faculty member they find undesirable for any reason whatever. The true reason will be covered up by pious pronouncements (witness those included in your article) about the good of the institution, the state, the country, etc. I believe every faculty person in the country could give you examples of certain faculty members whose ``merit,'' as determined by present methods, seems to be more related to the color of his nose rather than to the quality of his work or the excellence of his ideas. Revising tenure will only increase this trend.
Carroll Smith, of Christiansburg, is a psychologist.
by CNB