As the Academy’s Blueprint Advisory Board develops the academic program for the future U.S. Public Service Academy, certain controversial issues continue to arise again and again. One of the most contentious topics to date has been the idea of faculty tenure.
Should the Academy embrace tenure as part of the faculty hiring process, or should it pursue a different model? Instead of tenure, for example, the Academy could offer three or six-year renewable contracts.
Here are some of the arguments to consider when evaluating this issue:
Pro Tenure
– Tenure safeguards academic freedom, which is particularly important at an institution created by Congress.
– Tenure provides a non-monetary benefit to prospective faculty members, making a faculty position more desirable without increasing the cost of the position.
– Offering tenure makes the position more attractive, thus ensuring that top-quality candidates will apply. Many new Ph.D.s, particularly those from top programs, will not even consider applying for a position that is not on the tenure track.
Anti-Tenure
– Tenure is an anachronism does not meet the needs of an adaptive, 21st century college. It artificially binds the hands of administrators and can saddle the college with poor performing faculty members.
– Tenure in itself does not protect academic freedom — there are many ways to preserve academic freedom without using the tenure process.
– Tenure creates “haves” and “have nots” on a faculty, which can undermine morale and collegiality.
The NEA’s Higher Education division has compiled a collection of resources that are useful when evaluating this very important issue. Click here to see their thorough article list.
As always, we’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Which arguments do you find most compelling? Feel free to leave a comment below.
