The recent discussions on academic freedom on this blog warrant, I think, a re-examination of academic freedom as a justification for tenure. Tenure can only be revoked on the basis of severe misconduct or gross incompetence, and revocation is usually a tedious procedure. The rationale for this is to protect scholars when they dissent from authority, general opinion, or choose to undertake risky research. However, given that researchers have to wait and struggle increasingly long (or fail altogether) to obtain a tenured position, this justification seems to me hardly defensible. I do not think academic freedom should be reserved for the select few, but rather, I invite suggestions on how to make academic freedom available for the non-tenured as well.
Consider the recent spate of tenure denials, where there are clear impingements on academic freedom: Feminist philosophers comment on the denial of tenure of about half a dozen faculty of color in De Paul. One of them, Dr. Namita Goswami, was hired to do philosophy of race, feminism and postcolonialism, but once hired, some of the faculty took issue with the subjects she investigated and decided on the basis of this that she was "not a good fit". Also, consider the recent case of Marie-Claude Lorne discussed in this blog. Her tenure review was irregular and not transparent, to say the least. These are extreme cases, but it does point toward a general trend where academic freedom is becoming a luxury for the tenured few.
In the early 2000s, the average age at which American academics got tenure was about 40, and for German academics it was about 37. I don't have more recent figures, but since the economic crisis the average age must have gone up still. This means that most researchers cannot enjoy the benefits of academic freedom for a decade or longer after their PhD, in what is often the most productive period of their career.
The rising average age at tenure is an unfortunate thing, since it actively discourages young scholars from engaging in risky research. This is perhaps not so much a problem in philosophy as it is in other fields. Young scholars who make an honest mistake, for instance in molecular biology or physics, can basically bury their hopes for a favorable tenure review (I'm talking about honest mistake here, not about deliberate plagiarism or meddling with data). But how can you do ground-breaking risky research without at least the possibility of mistake? Another problem with the breaking down of the tenure system is that many young scholars (postdocs) cannot even choose on what they work. Increasingly in Europe, young postdocs work on larger projects that have fairly specific subject matters. Usually, the fit between these people's own interests and the project is not perfect, and in some cases, the fit is poor. I knew several young scholars who were working on matters entirely unrelated to their previous research in such projects. They were unhappy with the situation, but it was either that or academic oblivion.
The productivity of older, tenured researchers is variable. Undeniably, there are excellent tenured scholars that engage in risky research. In those cases, tenure does have a clear benefit. However, in many other cases, tenured scholars are no longer active researchers, they have not published anything in years. In those cases, tenure just grants the academic freedom to be idle. Apart from introducing regular tenure reviews every few years (which would be very unpopular), I do not see an easy solution to this. But I do think that there are no objective grounds for reserving academic freedom for tenured folk only.
Recent Comments