• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Why You're Not Getting the College Education You Paid For

    Anywhere else it would have been grounds for dismissal. But when J. Michael Bailey, Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University, allowed demonstrations with sex toys as a part of a course, he was immune to firing, let alone outside pressure, because he had tenure.

    ­That was just one of the examples author and former Wall Street Journal editor Naomi Schaefer Riley gave while discussing the problems of university tenure in her talk “The Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Paid For,” held Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation.

    “The most pernicious aspects of university tenure,” she said, “do not make headlines at all.” Though the system may protect those whom The New Criterion’s Roger Kimball infamously deemed “tenured radicals,” its other flaws are worse.

    “I am concerned less with the radical than I am with the lazy, the incompetent, or the merely distracted,” Riley said.

    Riley contends that the tenure system wasn’t built with the interests of students in mind. It was built to provide economic security for a group of people who trained for years for jobs that carried little remuneration. It was, in fact, a de facto arrangement in many American workplaces; employees often worked for the same employer for the duration of their careers. Academic freedom was a distant, secondary concern during tenure’s early days.

    In the 19th century, however, university benefactors and professors clashed more and more often.

    “The faculty had their own ideas about what they wanted to study, and they didn’t much care for outside interference,” Riley said. They wanted the benefactors’ money, but not the benefactors. A modern version of this can be seen in the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation’s gift to Florida State University, the terms of which allow the foundation to ensure that its intent—promoting libertarian ideas on campus—remains intact.

    Research universities typically used tenure to protect professors and their scholarship from benefactors’ influence; they were to become “public intellectuals” who would “add to the general pool of knowledge available to mankind.” This required shelter for their scholarship. Tenure became an assurance of academic freedom, but their role as experts in their field placed them above public criticism.

    By the 1970s, this led to the job market in academia collapsing. Tenured professors held all of the jobs. This hurts Ph.D. holders looking for tenure-track positions, yet they still support the tenure system.

    “It’s not so much that we absolutely insist on security,” Riley quoted a graduate student as saying, “but the reality is that academic life has so little going for it. There is only this one, absolutely gratuitous benefit, which is that you have this absurd amount of security, which almost no one else in the workforce has.”

    An alternative system of multi-year, renewable contracts would provide a sensible alternative, reducing the stranglehold that faculty have over higher education. Thanks to tenure, they can play a waiting game and outlast their critics. With tenure in place, reform is impossible.

    Sterling Beard is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Education [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Why You're Not Getting the College Education You Paid For

    1. Pingback: Why You’re Not Getting the College Education You Paid For

    2. Richard Varner, Sout says:

      Well written!

      Are there instances where tenured educators are also union members? And if so, is this not a redundant, and therefore unnecessary level of job security?

      • While in K-12 unions tend to be the norm, that's not the case in higher-ed. Most profs are not members of unions — and as one, I know one of the main reasons.

        You look at some of your fellow profs, and especially at those who seem particularly keen to unionize, and ask yourself: do I want to be yoked to these schmucks? No way!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×