Op-Ed
Octobers, 1989
Page 5
Elon must establish a tenure policy
Editor of the Pendulum:
During the past decade the
number of tenured faculty
members at Elon College has
declined steadily. At present,
substantially fewer than one-third
of all full-time teaching faculty
are tenured-and almost no one at
the college is on tenure-track.
It is critically important for
education at Elon College that
this situation be corrected,
immediately. There are several
reasons why tenure is essential
for any. college, and especially so
at Elon.
First, the tenure system
evolved in higher education to
provide protection for the spirit
of free inquiry and free expression
which is essential for a vibrant,
living, changing higher
educational environment
If a college faculty member
actually is participating in and
contributing to higher education,
then that faculty member is
dealing with material-perhaps in
research, probably in meetings,
necessarily in the classroom-that
is at the cutting and often
controversial edge of his/her
discipline, and many of those
controversies have political
overtones.
Consider only a few
contemporary examples: in
economics, controversy
concerning "supply-side"
economics; in religion, disputes
over liberation theology; in
philosophy, fundamental
disagreements on issues of social
justice; in biology, controversy
concerning genetic determinism
(not to mention Darwinism).
In psychology, disputes over
IQ testing; in art, controversy
over "obscenity"; in literature,
battles over the literacy canon; in
business, questions about the
ethical-social responsibility of
corporate officers; in linguistics,
battles over creative vs.
behavioral accounts of language
acquisition.
In history, controversial
historical reconstuctions and
reinterpretations; in political
science, disputes over competing
political systems and analyses of
Latin American governments; in
sociology, studies of the causes
of criminal behavior; in
education, fundamental questions
concerning the role' of public
schools in society; in the field of
computers, the debate over
artificial intelligence.
The list could be expanded,
and the examples multiplied.
These are not "ivory tower"
controversies, but issues that are
debated in the media and in the
political arena. A college faculty
that takes seriously its role in
exploring and examining and
teaching current knowledge
cannot avoid constantly engaging
such issues.
If a college’s faculty
considers only those ideas that are
well-established and
noncontroversial, then that
college is intellectually
moribund. A college that has no
need of tenure has failed as a
college; an administrator who
does not see the importance of
the teniire system does not
understand the function of a
college, and does not understand
the difference between higher
education and technical
instruction.
A second reason why tenure
is essential is more practical. It
is becoming more and more
difficult to recruit outstanding
faculty members to Elon
College. The teaching load is
heavy, other responsibility-
advising, committee work—are
substantial, and opportunities to
read and study and do research and
remain current in one's field are
severely limited.
When recruitment is further
hobbled by being unable to offer
a tenure-track position,
recruitment of high-quality
faculty is difficult indeed. There
are already cases of faculty
members who left because they
did not receive tenure-track
appointments; there are many
more cases of superb teachers
who rejected an offer from Elon
to accept a tenure-track position
elsewhere.
Our recruitment efforts are
h^strung by what we have to
offer: if we offer a fixed-term
contract, which cannot be
extended beyond six years, then
potential faculty will obviously
prefer the possibility of more
permanent employment
elsewhere.
But if instead we offer this
bastard position of "permanent
non-tenure," which is non
existent at better schools and is
common only at the most
backward and authoritarian
"The policy of hiring permanent nontenured
faculty has already had some bad effects on
Elon College, especially on faculty morale."
religious "colleges," then
potential faculty are even more
doubtful: such p>ositions give the
impression that the college is
about to go belly up, and can't
make any long-term
commitments; or that the college
prefers to have its faculty
constantly vulnerable to being
fired at the whim of some
administrator.
Even if a potential faculty
member is convinced of the
integrity and good will of current
administrators, there is always
the question of what will happen
when a new Dean, a new Chair, a
new Vice-President, or a new
President is appointed: ihus
"permanent" non-tenure
appointments are seen—perhaps
correctly—as even more tenuous
and fraught with uncerainty than
are the undesirable term contracts.
Over the past decade Elon
College has managed to attract
excellent faculty members even
for such dubious "not-tenure"
positions: it has been a buyer's
market, and Elon has exploited
that maiket shamelessly.
But that situation is
changing rapidly. The best
estimates indicate that within a
decade there will be four
college/university positions
available for every three qualified
individuals in the humanities and
social sciences, while shortage in
other disciplines may be even
greater.
Forward-looking colleges are
now "stockpiling" promising
faculty members in preparation
for tlie anticipated shortage. In
contrast, the shortsighted Elon
College policy of denying tenure-
track appointments makes it
more and more difficult for Elon
College to compete.
The third reason that tenure
is important is a simple matter of
fairness. Elon makes much of
faculty "commitment" to the
college, and indeed the faculty do
make a tremendous commitment
of time, energy, and talent to
providing a high quality
classroom and research
environment at the college.
But that commitment is
grossly one-sided. Faculty are
being asked to commit their
efforts, their skills, and their time
to the well-being of Elon
students and Elon College; but
there is absolutely no reciprocal
commitment fi-om the college to
these dedicated, nonteniu-e track
faculty members. They can be
let go at any moment, for any-or
no-reason.
If after a decade of dedicated
work a faculty member "bums
out" from the exhausting
schedule of teaching, striving to
stay current in his/her discipline,
advising, committee meetings,
then the faculty member can be
conveniently cast aside, and
another warm nontenure track
body rolled in.
There cannot be one-sided
commitment. If the collegc
expects faculty to commit
themselves to the well-being of
Elon College and its students,
then there should be a reciprocal
tenure commitment: a
commitment to that faculty
member, a commitment to
provide opportunities for renewal
and continuing work in his/her
area to keep the person
intellectually alive and
academically cuirent
Having a "permanently
nontenured" category at a college
where faculty are expected to
teach nine courses every year,
with no sabbaticals, and frequent
classes of 40 students are more,
certainly gives the impression
that the college intends to wear
these people out and then replace
them.
Perhaps that is a false
impression; if so, the college
should be eager to correct it, by
abolishing the category of
permanent nontenure
appointments.
Some have claimed that there
should not be too many tenure
track appointments, since they
make it likely that departments
will be "tenured-in," and not have
any new individuals entering the
department, and thus become
stale. The argument is ludicrous.
In the first place a
"permanent" nontenure position
would hardly be the answer to
that problem. If it is truly
permanent, then it will not avoid
the supposed problem of
"tenured-in" departments, since
there will be no change of
faculty-but only a change in the
status of the permanent faculty.
If instead the "permanent
nontenured" person is to be fired
in order to bring in a new person,
then the "permanent" nontenure
offer is a lie.
Even with every position
being a tenure-track position,
there is little chance that a
department will become "tenured-
in" for long periods; instead, the
natural process of retirement
results in sufficient turnover.
In any case, the notion that
only through bringing in "new
faculty" can a department stay
current and fresh betrays the
narrowest sort of exploitational
thinking. If the college is to
deserve the name "college," it
must be committed to keeping all
faculty-tenured and lenure-lrack,
those who have taught for four
years and those who have taught
for forty-academically current and
intellectually alive and interested
in their disciplines.
If Elon College should ever
reach the point at which new
ideas and currency in the field can
be achieved only through
bringing in new faculty, and
long-term faculty cannot stay
current and alive and fresh for
their full teaching careers at Elon
College, then Elon College
should close its doors: it would
then be betraying its students,
abusing its faculty, and failing its
missibn.
The policy of hiring
permanent nontenured faculty has
already had some bad effects on
Elon College, especially on
faculty morale. Fortunately, the
problems are not irreversible, and
the means for reversing the
situation are readily at hand. The
category of permanent nontenured
faculty should be abolished, and
all faculty now in that category
should be given tenure or placed
on tenure-track appointments.
Any "solution"—such as
raising the percentage of
tenured/tenure track faculty—
which continues in any form this
foul category of permanent
nontenure appointments is
academically, practically, and
morally unacceptable.
Bruce Waller
Department of Philosophy