Lexington, KY - Can you imagine a business, a group medical practice, or perhaps a law firm today offering lifetime employment? In recent weeks, while news headlines have focused on layoffs in just about every sector imaginable, we've also read about academic tenure and discontinuation of same for new faculty hired by the Kentucky Community and Technical College System. Some see this as an appropriate step for our times; after all, the days of retirement with a gold watch in recognition of a lifelong career at the same company are gone.
Why, people ask, should higher education operate any differently? Well, there is the small matter of academic freedom; tenure offers protection to faculty whose opinions differ with administrators and boards.
That said, academic tenure is not exactly a lifetime entitlement. Colleges and universities may fire or release a tenured faculty member for cause, department closure or financial exigency. However, the tenure agreement means that a long road must be traveled before that outcome. In the same vein, a long road is traveled before a faculty member receives tenure. Years of post-baccalaureate education are involved, followed by years of educational work with no guarantee of long-term employment.
Many of us recall professors who mentored our work and, indeed, long-tenured faculty can form the heart of an institution, carrying its mission and history forward with great care. The best of these individuals have time for and interest in their students; they teach, advise, serve on faculty governance committees and attend campus events. If at research universities, they also seek grants and conduct research in pursuit of new knowledge to enrich their fields. In short, the central portion of their lives revolves around the institution, and the institution is better for their presence. They are not simply employees, but stewards of an ideal.
However, some tenured faculty members fall short of this standard; they seem to check out. Whether because they know their positions are secure or for other reasons, they cease making great efforts to reach out to students or indeed to other members of the faculty. Some immerse themselves in research, leaving the teaching portion of their responsibilities to wither. Others give up on research, their creative juices seemingly dried up. They may go through the motions of carrying out their responsibilities, but their actions reflect habit and duty, rather than personal commitment. Faculty members in this mold have driven the spike through tenure's heart.
Time and tide
At research universities, full-time tenured faculties were the norm for many years. However, over the years, use of part-time faculty has grown at both four-year and two-year institutions. According to statistics published recently in Inside Higher Ed, an online journal, 69 percent of teaching positions in public community colleges were part-time in 2007, vs. 65 percent in 1997. At public four-year colleges and universities, 44 percent of teaching positions are now part time, vs. 34 percent in 1997. At private doctoral-granting universities, which would include my three previous employers, the part-time percentage has shifted somewhat less: 31 percent in 2007 vs. 30 percent in 1997.
Many faculties within KCTCS are contesting these shifting sands. As of May 8, 13 of the 16 KCTCS campuses had given "no confidence" votes to the KCTCS board of regents and president for eliminating the possibility of tenure for new hires. Already-tenured faculty will keep their status, but new faculty hired after July 1, 2009, will have contract opportunities without possibility of tenure.
These no-confidence votes reflect knowledge that prospects for secure employment are dimmed without tenure, and that attracting excellent faculty without this opportunity may prove more difficult. Do they also reflect a lack of understanding of today's economic environment?
In every facet of today's economy, we see dramatic change occurring. Major automobile manufacturers are restructuring, having been hobbled by long-term financial commitments to workers and lack of foresight by executives. Negotiations with labor unions were presumably made in earnest but market forces have changed the game. We see that companies able to reshape their workforce with an eye to what's needed are most likely to survive, while those carrying long-term commitments may not. Humane? Perhaps not. Darwinian? Yes.
Jane S. Shropshire guides students and families through the college search process. Send questions or suggestions to JShrop@att.net.