The "remove tenure" movement is based on the fact that 90% of University professors are "liberal" (progressive). America, today, is seeing the results of progressive indoctrination of students.
You say:
"as long as they continue to do satisfactory work, they will continue to have a job"
The "they" refers to all professors in my era. There were few if any
'activist' professors. Political activism would have been grounds
for dismissal in my era.
The "they" in your statement almost certainly refers to 'activist' professors -- those
in the non-science (irreproducible results) fields. "They" are not Mathematics,
Chemistry, Biology, or Physics professors as far as I can determine.
You say:
"what is driving the anti-tenure train is the expressed belief that university faculties are infested
by woke leftists who are indoctrinating their students on the public dime. And because they have
tenure, they can thumb their noses at anyone trying to rein them in"
University faculties are, indeed, infested by progressives (woke) leftists. Numerous polls over
the past decades indicate 80+% of university professors are progressive. (Are you a progressive?)
You say:
"State legislatures used to appropriate the majority of operating funds for public universities.
Nowadays, that contribution is often in the single or low double digits. At UT, it is 10 percent."
A very informative insight. My tuition in college was $300/semester in 1964. When government
forced colleges to seek funding elsewhere, tuition costs went up. Today, my cost for 1 semester
at the same university is
~$6680 or so (University of Delaware). That would be a 15%/yr annual increase in tuition costs. The
government gave the state sponsored colleges and universities the power to charge whatever
the market would bear. The government democratically created UT and then allowed partisan
citizens to rule it. The government forswore democracy for demagoguery. The federal
government started offering money to pay the ever-increasing prices charged by the colleges.
(A detailed timeline and analysis of the transition from public funding of public
universities to private funding and the sources of that funding
would be an influential Ph.D. thesis.)
You say:
"We live in a democracy"
I don't understand that. A "democracy" can change its mind
on a dime. A democracy is a plebiscite. America is not a democracy.
You are a distinguished professor -- one whom I follow
and respect without qualification.
America is a republic. We elect representatives to speak
our minds. A republic is not subject to daily or monthly
"democratic" whims. A republic can suffer the delay of
"TENURE".
You say:
Unless all universities abandon tenure, those
that end it will be at a competitive disadvantage.
The best faculty will go elsewhere.
I say:
Only the activist (biased) faculty will go elsewhere.
Your statement speaks only to the du jour activist
Idioms, aphorisms, proverbs and their etymologies and sources can be enlightening.
Take for instance the aphorism “What goes around comes around.” It probably had its origin in the African-American culture, first appearing in print of some kind according to Google’s Ngram in the 1960s, but maybe as early as the 1950s, and certainly by the 1970s became prolific; most likely an adaptation of the axiom “one reaps what one sows” harkening to two verses in the King James Bible, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7) and “But this [I say], He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” (2 Corinthians 9:6)
Take another: “Every dog will have its day.” Perhaps, according to medieval Dutch scholar Erasmus, this aphorism goes back to the Greek playwright Euripides having been killed in 405 BC by dogs set upon him by a rival, as reported by Plutarch in the first century.
And then there is “There ought to be a law.” Its origins long antecede the1944-1985 newspaper comic strip created by Harry Shorten and Al Fagaly, but was certainly popularized by them in American culture.
Well, maybe there ought not be a law.
Isn’t this latest legislative move to abolish tenure just the opposite side of the same coin or a reaction to the idea that not only must I be free to think as I please, but I am not satisfied until I require everyone else to also think as I do? And to achieve that I invoke power: the power of whatever government to which I may have access to use its legitimate use of force to make you at least say you believe as I do; or to use the economic power of my own personal wealth to wear you down to at least paying lip-service to the righteousness of my position; or to use the power of my position to give you a grade that may have life consequences to you if I choose not to fully appreciate (or tolerate) what you have written in response to a question on my quiz.
On November 1, 2022, I commented in response to Prof. Brands essay that same day “Adios affirmative action” where he wrote about the Universities of Texas, UNC and Harvard cases then pending before the United States Supreme Court. In making his last point he wrote: “Much has been said on both sides of the debate. But a few things have not been said or not said very often. ... If affirmative action, already a half-century old, somehow survives the scrutiny of the current court, ... [it] will effectively write into constitutional law the presumption that black students can’t compete on an equal footing with other students. Nothing could be more corrosive to the ambitions of the very people affirmative action is supposed to benefit.” To that I commented that was an argument I heard first expounded by Prof. Lino Graglia, now deceased, then of the University of Texas School of Law, in the early 1970s, but I had not heard it said much since. Prof. Graglia’s public position then brought upon himself some academic criticism among so-called “elite” academicians and law students, some “elite” journalists, some not-so elite politicians, and others, elite or not, seeking to have him removed from the faculty. His comments did provoke thought and debate, which, I noted, was a good example of why the notion of academic tenure is worth preserving regardless of how one may have personally come down on the issue he was arguing.
I suspect that many of those now pushing so hard to abolish tenure would have been, had they been around then, the first to insist that the Board of Regents had no authority to remove Prof Graglia from a position where he could corrupt our State’s future great legal minds because he possessed tenure.
Wasn’t the corruption of the minds of Athenian youth the same charges that Socrates was tried for and convicted of? I suspect he did not have tenure.
Those who now think that there ought to be a law against tenure should have someone whispering in their ear as they ride into the city on a chariot in their triumph: “Sic transit gloria mundi. What goes around comes around. Every dog has his day.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has obviously caused a restructuring of our brains such that there is now little moderation of thought or in behavior. Everything is now spoken or done to the extreme.
In statistics there is a useful phenomenon called regression toward the mean. When many random variables are sampled, the most extreme results in a later sampling will (in many cases) be less extreme, closer to the initial mean of all of the variables. In this I find some comfort.
The "remove tenure" movement is based on the fact that 90% of University professors are "liberal" (progressive). America, today, is seeing the results of progressive indoctrination of students.
You say:
"as long as they continue to do satisfactory work, they will continue to have a job"
The "they" refers to all professors in my era. There were few if any
'activist' professors. Political activism would have been grounds
for dismissal in my era.
The "they" in your statement almost certainly refers to 'activist' professors -- those
in the non-science (irreproducible results) fields. "They" are not Mathematics,
Chemistry, Biology, or Physics professors as far as I can determine.
You say:
"what is driving the anti-tenure train is the expressed belief that university faculties are infested
by woke leftists who are indoctrinating their students on the public dime. And because they have
tenure, they can thumb their noses at anyone trying to rein them in"
University faculties are, indeed, infested by progressives (woke) leftists. Numerous polls over
the past decades indicate 80+% of university professors are progressive. (Are you a progressive?)
You say:
"State legislatures used to appropriate the majority of operating funds for public universities.
Nowadays, that contribution is often in the single or low double digits. At UT, it is 10 percent."
A very informative insight. My tuition in college was $300/semester in 1964. When government
forced colleges to seek funding elsewhere, tuition costs went up. Today, my cost for 1 semester
at the same university is
~$6680 or so (University of Delaware). That would be a 15%/yr annual increase in tuition costs. The
government gave the state sponsored colleges and universities the power to charge whatever
the market would bear. The government democratically created UT and then allowed partisan
citizens to rule it. The government forswore democracy for demagoguery. The federal
government started offering money to pay the ever-increasing prices charged by the colleges.
(A detailed timeline and analysis of the transition from public funding of public
universities to private funding and the sources of that funding
would be an influential Ph.D. thesis.)
You say:
"We live in a democracy"
I don't understand that. A "democracy" can change its mind
on a dime. A democracy is a plebiscite. America is not a democracy.
You are a distinguished professor -- one whom I follow
and respect without qualification.
America is a republic. We elect representatives to speak
our minds. A republic is not subject to daily or monthly
"democratic" whims. A republic can suffer the delay of
"TENURE".
You say:
Unless all universities abandon tenure, those
that end it will be at a competitive disadvantage.
The best faculty will go elsewhere.
I say:
Only the activist (biased) faculty will go elsewhere.
Your statement speaks only to the du jour activist
faculty. The "silent majority" will continue to
thrive in the most amazingly excellent public
university in America.
I love your posts, your understanding of history.
I simply disagree with you on a few issues,
Ed
Idioms, aphorisms, proverbs and their etymologies and sources can be enlightening.
Take for instance the aphorism “What goes around comes around.” It probably had its origin in the African-American culture, first appearing in print of some kind according to Google’s Ngram in the 1960s, but maybe as early as the 1950s, and certainly by the 1970s became prolific; most likely an adaptation of the axiom “one reaps what one sows” harkening to two verses in the King James Bible, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7) and “But this [I say], He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” (2 Corinthians 9:6)
Take another: “Every dog will have its day.” Perhaps, according to medieval Dutch scholar Erasmus, this aphorism goes back to the Greek playwright Euripides having been killed in 405 BC by dogs set upon him by a rival, as reported by Plutarch in the first century.
And then there is “There ought to be a law.” Its origins long antecede the1944-1985 newspaper comic strip created by Harry Shorten and Al Fagaly, but was certainly popularized by them in American culture.
Well, maybe there ought not be a law.
Isn’t this latest legislative move to abolish tenure just the opposite side of the same coin or a reaction to the idea that not only must I be free to think as I please, but I am not satisfied until I require everyone else to also think as I do? And to achieve that I invoke power: the power of whatever government to which I may have access to use its legitimate use of force to make you at least say you believe as I do; or to use the economic power of my own personal wealth to wear you down to at least paying lip-service to the righteousness of my position; or to use the power of my position to give you a grade that may have life consequences to you if I choose not to fully appreciate (or tolerate) what you have written in response to a question on my quiz.
On November 1, 2022, I commented in response to Prof. Brands essay that same day “Adios affirmative action” where he wrote about the Universities of Texas, UNC and Harvard cases then pending before the United States Supreme Court. In making his last point he wrote: “Much has been said on both sides of the debate. But a few things have not been said or not said very often. ... If affirmative action, already a half-century old, somehow survives the scrutiny of the current court, ... [it] will effectively write into constitutional law the presumption that black students can’t compete on an equal footing with other students. Nothing could be more corrosive to the ambitions of the very people affirmative action is supposed to benefit.” To that I commented that was an argument I heard first expounded by Prof. Lino Graglia, now deceased, then of the University of Texas School of Law, in the early 1970s, but I had not heard it said much since. Prof. Graglia’s public position then brought upon himself some academic criticism among so-called “elite” academicians and law students, some “elite” journalists, some not-so elite politicians, and others, elite or not, seeking to have him removed from the faculty. His comments did provoke thought and debate, which, I noted, was a good example of why the notion of academic tenure is worth preserving regardless of how one may have personally come down on the issue he was arguing.
I suspect that many of those now pushing so hard to abolish tenure would have been, had they been around then, the first to insist that the Board of Regents had no authority to remove Prof Graglia from a position where he could corrupt our State’s future great legal minds because he possessed tenure.
Wasn’t the corruption of the minds of Athenian youth the same charges that Socrates was tried for and convicted of? I suspect he did not have tenure.
Those who now think that there ought to be a law against tenure should have someone whispering in their ear as they ride into the city on a chariot in their triumph: “Sic transit gloria mundi. What goes around comes around. Every dog has his day.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has obviously caused a restructuring of our brains such that there is now little moderation of thought or in behavior. Everything is now spoken or done to the extreme.
In statistics there is a useful phenomenon called regression toward the mean. When many random variables are sampled, the most extreme results in a later sampling will (in many cases) be less extreme, closer to the initial mean of all of the variables. In this I find some comfort.