Tenure is terrible. Well, it’s awesome for those of us who have it. The tenure system, however, is nonsense on stilts. Economists’ rationalizations for tenure are flimsy indeed. Just consider: Virtually all semi-prestigious professors have tenure, yet virtually no one in the for-profit sector has anything close. I know, we can construct fanciful scenarios where this chasm makes sublime economic sense, such as: “Professors are willing to sacrifice vastly more in salary than normal humans to eliminate the last vestiges of job insecurity” plus “Giving professors enormous job security has far less effect on their productivity than it would on normal humans.” But neither claim is remotely plausible. Lots of non-professors intensely value job security, and lots of professors heavily slack off once they get tenure.
Still, no individual professor is responsible for this corrupt system. And it’s hardly reasonable (or even useful) for an individual professor to renounce his tenure, whatever that might mean. It is reasonable, however, to ask: “How can my tenure be redeemed?”
The obvious starting point is: Don’t shortchange your students merely because you have tenure. Take pride in your teaching. Strive to edify and inspire even though the career rewards are trivial.
Next: Produce excellent research even though you totally don’t have to. Take pride in your contributions to human knowledge. Push yourself on both quantity and quality.
When you ponder these norms, however, they’re more rigorous than they look.
Suppose you’re teaching labor economics. Can you “strive to edify and inspire” if you gloss over intensely controversial subjects like the economics of discrimination? Absolutely not. You can’t take pride in your teaching while muttering, “Students can’t handle the truth.” The forthright yet friendly exploration of vital yet sensitive topics is part and parcel of great teaching. And while untenured teachers can plausibly protest, “I’ve got to think about my family’s security,” those of us with tenure know where our next paycheck is coming from. While there’s a small chance the administration hassles you, that’s a minor cost in the broad scheme of things. If tenured professors won’t voice awkward truths, who will?
Much the same hold for research. Slightly extending human knowledge on a topic no one cares about is rarely a worthwhile intellectual contribution. In a world of anxious conformists, most of the best research opportunities are mired in controversy – especially in the humanities and social sciences. If you want to create research that really matters, you should boldly proceed. Tenure takes care of your family, but who will put food on the table of ugly truths? Most of the time, the answer is: You or no one.
So make it you.
If you use your tenure to teach and research with integrity, you’re well above the bar. Yet if you’re earnest about redeeming tenure, you should also deploy it to defend the integrity of teaching and research in general. Untenured faculty can forgivably keep their mouths shut and their heads down. Those of us with tenure, however, are the obvious candidates to “give back”: To champion the rights of faculty and students to explore controversial ideas without fear. And bear in mind: for we professors, the only “controversial ideas” worthy of the name are ideas that are controversial on university campuses. Noam Chomsky may be more controversial than Milton Friedman in the broader world, but in academia almost no one needs to look over their shoulder before praising Chomsky.
Admittedly, the duty to stand up for the right to explore controversial ideas without fear is an imperfect duty; no one has time to stand up for everyone. Nevertheless, you have ample time to at least stand up for your own friends, your own colleagues, and your own students. Some anti-intellectual university functionary might get mad at you for doing so. If even a dream job for life doesn’t give you a backbone, though, what will?
READER COMMENTS
Vivian Darkbloom
Oct 29 2020 at 10:49am
I read this and the other recent blogpost on how Bryan Caplan is not afraid of being silenced or “cancelled” because he has tenure.
I hope he’s right, but this got me to thinking of the oidashibeya in Japan. There are other subtle and not-so-subtle ways of taking aim at those whose views are not popular in the academy than firing them. We might start with the curriculum committee….Sorry, Bryan, but, about that Labor Economics course—perhaps an additional course in econometrics would better suit your skill set…
Dean Hudson
Oct 29 2020 at 11:01am
Anti-intellectual university functionaries almost never tangle with faculty, at least not willingly. The real danger comes from other faculty and students. Students in particular can make a professor’s life miserable and drive even tenured professors out of otherwise secure jobs. Sadly, even tenured professors rightly fear the wrath of the mob.
nobody.really
Oct 29 2020 at 4:13pm
True enough, I don’t often find tenure outside of academia (and courts). But likewise, you rarely find private firms that have an explicit duty to make unpopular statements outside of these forums. You might argue that newspapers have that duty, yet lack tenure. And we can see how well they are bearing that burden.
I had always understood tenure as providing faculty with job security so that they could teach (and research) unpopular ideas. And, sure enough, Caplan seems to come to that conclusion, too. Thus it seems as if Caplan is arguing that there are a number of WEAK rationales for tenure, plus at least one good one. But you only need one good rationale to justify a policy.
KevinDC
Oct 30 2020 at 10:21am
I think you’re missing the point. Caplan seems to be arguing that that, as you put it, “providing faculty with job security so that they could teach (and research) unpopular ideas” is a good theoretical argument for tenure, but in practice the effect is less “time for fearless pursuit of the truth, however unpopular” and more “now I can phone it in for the rest of my career without consequence.” So if you have a number of arguments for a position, most of which are theoretically weak, and one is strong in theory* but empirically false in practice…you’re left without any good arguments for that position.
*Of course, this is point I would dispute as well – I don’t think the argument is theoretically strong at all. I think it’s very weak, because the assumptions you need for why tenure would have this desired effect are patently absurd, and seem to be obviously designed to produce the desired conclusion.
KevinDC
Oct 30 2020 at 11:31am
Man, so many typos in this comment. Let this be a lesson to myself – never post anything online until I’m sufficiently coffeed.
Yes, I verbed the word coffee. I feel no shame in this.
Thomas Hutcheson
Oct 29 2020 at 4:21pm
Tenuere, as I understand it, came about to protect universities from outside pressure to dismiss professors whose views, teaching and research were threatening to outside interests.
Michael Sandifer
Oct 30 2020 at 10:36am
Bryan Caplan,
Do you have an opinion of how much of IQ is inborn, versus being nurtured? Also, do you have a firm opinion of what IQ actually measures?
KevinDC
Oct 30 2020 at 10:43am
He actually gets into a lot of that in his book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids.
Ew Pemakin
Oct 30 2020 at 4:15pm
I have often thought that a tenured professor teaching labor economics should start with a lecture on the incentives of the tenure system. Then dismiss class for the semester.
Phil
Nov 4 2020 at 3:59pm
There is PLENTY an individual professor can do. Who has all the power in a university? The tenured full professors. You can use your superior intellect and power to convince your colleagues the system is nonsense and dismantle it.
Take teaching more seriously. C’mon, man, that’s all you’ve got? How about taking responsibility for faculty self-governance seriously.
Comments are closed.