The concept of tenure is a contested one, to be sure. For some, it is a mere faculty entitlement, guaranteeing employment and further insulating professors from the practical realities of life. For others, it is a vital means of protecting the academy and securing the greatest degree of academic and intellectual freedom.
Yet, regardless of the arguments for or against tenure, it is commonly assumed that schools can no longer do without it. Upon the release of the AAUP’s “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” the practice began rapidly to be incorporated into handbooks, contracts, and policy statements across the country. The arguments for tenure were clear enough: to safeguard academic freedom, promote stability, and protect teachers from those who would squelch their ideas. Soon, the notion of an indefinite appointment became the gold standard. It also became the brass ring for which young academics reached and the keep that seasoned faculty maneuvered to defend.
Tenure also created a culture of unrealistic entitlement within the academy.
Tenure also created, however, a culture of unrealistic entitlement within the academy. Where in the broader world is there a guarantee of employment for life? Furthermore, the practice places a burden on institutions by limiting their ability to respond to institutional, financial, and personnel challenges.
Granted, termination for cause, upon program closures, and during financial crises is accounted for in most tenure guidelines. Once tenure is in place, though, it is usually accompanied by such a high degree of faculty control that terminating a tenured faculty member is a daunting and arduous task, often abandoned outright or resulting in a significant financial settlement.