Give how much conservatives claim they are persecuted on college campuses, I am surprised that conservatives would support abolishing the one thing that gives conservative professors the freedom to speak openly about their views without fear of repercussions.

Anonymous wrote:It’s OK to dislike tenure, but why should the government regulate its use? Shouldn’t it be up to the people who run the colleges?

This would apply to public colleges and universities in Texas. They can’t abolish it for private institutions.

Anonymous wrote:They should just end tenure at age 80. Put a term limit on it.

I also think that aging professors is a bigger problem than the actual system of tenure. I would drop the age to 70. My mom is still going strong at 78 complaining about students and younger colleagues more and more every year. She has no interest in mentoring anybody at this point. She has had 2 colleagues where the university had to get family members to intervene because these folks had early stages of dementia and were making both their students and colleagues miserable. I keep encouraging her to retire, but, there seems to be no incentive for her to do so.

I'm at a think tank, and we have the same problem. Elderly research staff won't retire, but complain that younger staff (I am 50!) won't take up the "mantle of leadership".

GTFO. Rant over!

Anonymous wrote:Weird how the people who usually rant about "false accusations" and "ruining his life" are all for abolishing tenure because of professors abusing their power

what??

Weird how the people who usually rant about "false accusations" and "ruining his life" are all for abolishing tenure because of professors abusing their power

It’s OK to dislike tenure, but why should the government regulate its use? Shouldn’t it be up to the people who run the colleges?

I would like to see tenure eliminated within the colleges of education. There are too many whole language professors who refuse to keep up with the cross-field research on brain science and reading.

The tenure system definitely needs an overhaul, there need to be some sort of performance metrics in place post-tenure as well as ways to more easily remove abusive tenured faculty. The Harvard case is a good example of tenured faculty abuse of grad students.

This is in the right direction. Too many dead wood faculties on the pay roll that do nothing. This will make the positions available to young rsearchers who are active on teaching and research. If you no longer produce results you come down. Always so in the industry, time for the same in academia.

Anonymous wrote:I think this is an example of a case in which kneejerk partisanship has crippled what could be a useful debate.

One example is COVID lockdown restrictions. Weighing the economic and non-economic costs and benefits of restrictions is important. But, if the analysis process is purely a way for rule haters and special interests to lash out, it’s not useful. Neutral people end up thinking of all opponents of any restriction as evil or crazy.

Tenure might actually be doing more harm than good, by creating a population of super citizens who have enormous rights and a population of assistant professors and adjuncts who have no rights and no ability to settle down. Maybe there’s a better way to set things up. But, if the most visible people supporting elimination of tenure are mean people who want to chase The Libruls away, then that blocks what could be a useful discussion about how to reform a cruel and exploitative system.

Tenure gives faculty a bit more power in discussions with admins who are often the ones creating a lot of the problems in academia. Professors keep colleges focused on knowledge-building (both teaching and research). If you get rid of tenure then admin calls all the shots and you have even more highly paid managerial types focusing on money and not academics and adjuncts proliferate. This is what happens at any school without decent faculty governance even with tenure. Professors are not as a rule overpaid, and you look at any kid's school experience and they have mainly loved their professors. In my experience there are a few "dead weight professors" but as a whole they are hard-working, ambitious people who care about students. If they have a light teaching load it's because they are doing research which also means mentoring often 20+ students in a lab every day and writing for grants to fund all of them. It's a lot easier to teach a class than to mentor and fund a team of students doing research. So the tenured profs who are teaching more classes are because they are not running a lab/getting research grants. Many professors generate far more grant funds than their salaries--and that all goes to the school and to funding students--the profs don't get extra money (except summer funding for research) because they have a grant.

I think if you get rid of tenure you have the admins with more power without the check of the professors who actually are working in the fields you'll just exacerbate the trend of adjuncts that's already happening.

I think this is an example of a case in which kneejerk partisanship has crippled what could be a useful debate.

One example is COVID lockdown restrictions. Weighing the economic and non-economic costs and benefits of restrictions is important. But, if the analysis process is purely a way for rule haters and special interests to lash out, it’s not useful. Neutral people end up thinking of all opponents of any restriction as evil or crazy.

Tenure might actually be doing more harm than good, by creating a population of super citizens who have enormous rights and a population of assistant professors and adjuncts who have no rights and no ability to settle down. Maybe there’s a better way to set things up. But, if the most visible people supporting elimination of tenure are mean people who want to chase The Libruls away, then that blocks what could be a useful discussion about how to reform a cruel and exploitative system.

Anonymous wrote:I believe this will happen in more states. Great! Tenure protects ineffective and lazy professors.

Red states, which is fine. My kids have not and will not choose colleges in red states. That includes our home state, VA.

Anonymous wrote:Another state whose leadership aims to destroy public education in their state.

What will happen if this passes:
Complete inability for Texas to recruit new science professors who are able to compete in the market of ideas.
Those smart faculty will head to other states - or other countries. (Britain, China would love to have them.)

If this happens I wouldn't send my kids to Texas universities - because Texas universities won't get the best faculty.

We have a modern global talent economy, and if a state education system is anti-intellectual, why would I want my kids to go to school there?

Little late, isn't it? Seems this has been happening

Anonymous wrote:Some professors are lazy A holes. This might help get rid of them. Now we need term imits for congress and the Supreme Court.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Many of the faculty that the colleges hire now are non tenure track already. The over supply of PhD's is the cause of this. Tenure track positions are getting fewer and fewer in academia.

Great! Then you certainly agree that the free market is efficiently handling this and there is no need for governmental intervention! Perfect!

Anonymous wrote:Plus, for years academia has ignored the virtual congregation of the woke cabal in their ranks who thumb the noses at the outside world and continue to indoctrinate students with nonsensical woke filth, under the protection of tenure. Tenure is an anachronism. Get rid of it. No other industry has it and innovation and excellence happens everywhere even without it.

Ahh, spoke too soon. There you go with your hypocrisy.

Please don't expose your ignorance. These Universities are State universities. They are funded by the immense oil deposits under Texas lands that fatten their endowments. The proposal is not to enforce these decisions on Rice university and other private universities. UT is supposed to serve the needs of Texas, not the sensibilities of coastal elites. It's very clear whata majority of Texas likes, even if liberals detest it. It's not your money.

So what you're saying is UT serves the needs of Texas oil billionaire elites?

Anonymous wrote:

Why would the best ever accept a non-tenured job if they are offered tenured jobs elsewhere?

else.. where? All the R states will follow suit. In certain areas (e.g. CS) there's already a problem with professors leaving for Industry. Tenure does not prevent that. Would they move to other states? Let them. I'm sure there are enough profs. that will take their place.