shiftyandquick said:

---

This is important because it could have a very big impact on A&M. Including the ability to recruit faculty.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/20/texas-senate-tenure-universities/

---

For once we are in agreement. Not all tenured professors are ticking leftist time bombs (that is the realm of liberal arts). Many are scientist and engineers who purse their own research that benefits A&M and their own carriers. Tenure allows a scientist or engineer to follow a path that could lead to new discoveries, without interference from the administration.

The left currently purges conservatives from academia through a hostile work environment and by isolating them from unbiased peer review, grants, and other acknowledgment of quality and value of work output. They get increasingly isolated and leave for private employment or other things.

Tenure has a value in ensuring academic freedom instead of the unquestioned dominance of orthodoxy, but it isn't working against the academic collective itself, who as described above, find ways to purge thought minorities on any topic that can be remotely political. That spills over into ideological indoctrination of students with only the majority orthodoxy.

Muktheduck said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Good move. The concept of tenure is ridiculous.

I've worked 30+ years in industry, and I don't have tenure.

I earn the opportunity every day to come back the next day by delivering on what my employer expects of me. Same for the people who work for me.

Crazy concept, I know, lol.

---

Well that is the problem. Conceptually, you don't want your intellectuals bound to delivering on what their employer demands. You want them bound to facts about reality.

Of course, we've strayed so far from that ideal that it's hard to defend any protections for academia. But the concept itself has some merit

---

Actually, there's needs to be alignment throughout the organization toward it's mission. If it's research, fine. If it's teaching, fine. Or a blend of the two, ok. Hire administrators to oversee see that and staff the organization with professors accordingly. If there's a problem at the top, replace the adminstrator(s). Or rogue professors who refuse to align with the approved mission. It's understood there should be a wide range of academic freedom to ensure pursuit of truth and discovery, but that range has limits.

But this notion that professors -- in a public university supported by public tax dollars -- are there to independently do whatever the heck they want to do is ridiculous.

An L of an Ag said:

---

As reasonable as this sounds, I guarantee it's going to be used to degrade the quality of college degrees AND defraud the public at the same time.

---

how much further can you degrade under water basket weaving? half the degrees people get these days are worthless as it is.

How many of these guys are teaching undergrads anyway??

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Muktheduck said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Good move. The concept of tenure is ridiculous.

I've worked 30+ years in industry, and I don't have tenure.

I earn the opportunity every day to come back the next day by delivering on what my employer expects of me. Same for the people who work for me.

Crazy concept, I know, lol.

---

Well that is the problem. Conceptually, you don't want your intellectuals bound to delivering on what their employer demands. You want them bound to facts about reality.

Of course, we've strayed so far from that ideal that it's hard to defend any protections for academia. But the concept itself has some merit

---

Actually, there's needs to be alignment throughout the organization toward it's mission. If it's research, fine. If it's teaching, fine. Or a blend of the two, ok. Hire administrators to oversee see that and staff the organization with professors accordingly. If there's a problem at the top, replace the adminstrator(s). Or rogue professors who refuse to align with the approved mission. It's understood there should be a wide range of academic freedom to ensure pursuit of truth and discovery, but that range has limits.

But this notion that professors -- in a public university supported by public tax dollars -- are there to independently do whatever the heck they want to do is ridiculous.

---

Tenure doesn't allow a professor to "do whatever they want", full stop. There are still publishing and teaching requirements that they have to meet. There will be a number of other contractual expectations, as well.

So, in the sense you're talking about aligning the mission in a broader sense of "research" or "teaching", tenure doesn't prevent that.

Faculty dug their own grace: forced leftthink while denying students with varying opinions a dialogue, actively trying to interfere in student-alumni affairs such as the Sully statue on campus and "demanding" more oversight roles in university research strategies and supervision.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tenure doesn't allow a professor to "do whatever they want", full stop. There are still publishing and teaching requirements that they have to meet. There will be a number of other contractual expectations, as well.

So, in the sense you're talking about aligning the mission in a broader sense of "research" or "teaching", tenure doesn't prevent that.

---

Lol, we've seen thousands of professors across this country "do whatever they want" because they're protected by tenure. Every now and then a rogue professor gets held accountable and dismissed, but they are the exception.

APHIS AG said:

---

An L of an Ag said:

---

As reasonable as this sounds, I guarantee it's going to be used to degrade the quality of college degrees AND defraud the public at the same time.

---

DEI and wokeness has already degraded the quality of a college degree. Liberals have destroyed upper education.

---

There is no direct evidence to suggest that (DEI) programs in universities are damaging the value of higher education or threatening free discourse. DEI programs are necessary for creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for all students, faculty, and staff, and they help promote critical thinking, civil discourse, and a broader understanding of different perspectives.

Arguing that DEI programs prioritize identity politics over academic rigor can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and open inquiry. There is little empirical evidence to support these claims. Scholarship suggests that universities with strong DEI programs are more likely to foster a culture of intellectual engagement and exchange of ideas.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tenure doesn't allow a professor to "do whatever they want", full stop. There are still publishing and teaching requirements that they have to meet. There will be a number of other contractual expectations, as well.

So, in the sense you're talking about aligning the mission in a broader sense of "research" or "teaching", tenure doesn't prevent that.

---

Lol, we've seen thousands of professors across this country "do whatever they want" because they're protected by tenure. Every now and then a rogue professor gets held accountable and dismissed, but they are the exception.

---

You've seen thousands of professors say "I'm not teaching any classes" or "I'm not publishing anything" and nothing happened?

Yeah, okay...

ETA--Tenure protects professors from being fired due to the content of their research or their classes, albeit there are certainly broad research outlines and expectations as to course content depending on individual contracts. Tenure largely does not protect anyone beyond that. If you violate the contract, that's cause to be fired.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Lol, we've seen thousands of professors across this country "do whatever they want" because they're protected by tenure. Every now and then a rogue professor gets held accountable and dismissed, but they are the exception.

---

You've seen thousands of professors say "I'm not teaching any classes" or "I'm not publishing anything" and nothing happened?

Yeah, okay...

ETA--Tenure protects professors from being fired due to the content of their research or their classes, albeit there are certainly broad research outlines and expectations as to course content depending on individual contracts. Tenure largely does not protect anyone beyond that. If you violate the contract, that's cause to be fired.

---

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about:

Quote:

---

Hundreds of professors at the University of North Carolina signed a public letter Tuesday opposing legislation that would require university students to take courses on America's government and founding documents.

The 673 UNC Chapel Hill professors revealed the public letter Tuesday, arguing the new courses and another bill in the North Carolina House of Representatives would constitute an infringement on the university's "academic freedom."

---

In what world does requiring courses on basic American government violate "academic freedom" of professors?

Public universities exists for educating students and conducting research that benefits the public. They do not exist as a platform for professors to be "independent." They have an important role for sure, but it's not primarily about them.

Tenure reinforces a belief in professors that they are independent and unaccountable to the public. Good riddance.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/673-university-professors-sign-letter-opposing-courses-americas-founding-constitution

So does this mean we can finally fire that cancer that is Alvard?

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

Actually the opposite is happening in academia.

Quote:

---

Arguing that DEI programs prioritize identity politics over academic rigor can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and open inquiry. There is little empirical evidence to support these claims. Scholarship suggests that universities with strong DEI programs are more likely to foster a culture of intellectual engagement and exchange of ideas.

---

North Carolina is doing the same thing in addition to require a 3 credit hour class on American History.

Quote:

---

The first piece of legislation, House Bill 96, would require students to take a 3 credit-hour course covering America's founding and history. Required reading for the course would include the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail and the Gettysburg Address.

---

Quote:

---

The second bill, H.B. 715, would eliminate tenure at UNC and its affiliated campuses, establish minimum class sizes and require colleges to report "all non-instructional research performed by higher education personnel at the institution."

---

NC Bill to eliminate tenure

That'll put an end to wokeness at the indoctrination farms.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

So now you're worried about freedom of thought?? Yesterday you were advocating for the government to remove news channels that you disagree with.

NICU Dad said:

---

So does this mean we can finally fire that cancer that is Alvard?

---

Does that chalk-eater have tenure now??

Admiral Adama said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Tree Hugger said:

---

Well, it would keep new profs from lying through the interview process and then waving the "tenure" flag (if they were given that status) and doing whatever they wanted, but then it would also keep quality profs from wanting to come here because they would be worried about job security.

---

The fact that the seniors of an entire industry don't have to worry about job security is ridiculous in the first place. Prof's are in high demand everywhere, the only way you aren't getting another job at another school is if you screwed something up royally. And it makes the entry level jobs a nightmare, where there is actually no job security as a result.

---

The idea that anybody has permanent job security isn't a sound standard. A public university should have some kind of guarantee that its spending is at least being used so that professors are continuously generating content in the relevant fields and educating the citizens. You have to work for a living, and I think we all generally accept that.

But the Academy is also meaningfully different than industry. Industry has a goal to generate profit. The Academy has a goal to advance knowledge. The public benefits from chipping away at commonly understood fields with marginal gains, and from iconoclasts who are totally against the grain discovering new things or changing the way we think. The public loses when it demands that the Academy conform to its orthodoxy, rather than accepting that part of the advancement of knowledge is allowing research, even highly unpopular research, to be conducted without the fear of retribution / unemployment.

---

Maybe in the days of yore and in revisionist historical references this was true. But it hasn't been true for a long, long time. "The Academy" has a goal to ensure it survives, and does so at the highest standard of living possible. The goal is to get federal and private grant money - the undergrad component is largely something that has to be endured to stay as an institution of higher learning, but isn't even in the top 5, maybe top 10 of most important items to "The Academy".

The public largely forgets "The Academy" exists, outside of sporting events or when there is some controversial issue that pops up on occasion. Outside of those events, the general public doesn't care or pay any attention to what goes on at any university. I guarantee you that 99.99999% of the Texas population couldn't tell you any of the research projects currently going on at A&M, tu, tech, etc.

Tenure is akin to unions - they are an outdated institution that doesn't need to exist today because of how well they did their job in the past. It's a relic of old mentality and old logic that is largely a tradition, and largely used to protect beyond their prime, underperforming or highly controversial professors that ordinarily would not have an audience to preach to.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

Tell me one example of recent history (say....last 25 years) where a professor was fired specifically because they espoused revolutionary or contrarian ideas or that free speech was the reason they were fired.

The fact is that it will be very hard for public universities to recruit good candidates in the future without a tenure track.

I do think that is bad for the state of Texas.

However sometimes people need to FAAFO. And they learn an economics lesson which is if you are not competitive in the marketplace, you will lose. It was be the Texas public that pays the price.

Neehau said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

An L of an Ag said:

---

As reasonable as this sounds, I guarantee it's going to be used to degrade the quality of college degrees AND defraud the public at the same time.

---

DEI and wokeness has already degraded the quality of a college degree. Liberals have destroyed upper education.

---

There is no direct evidence to suggest that (DEI) programs in universities are damaging the value of higher education or threatening free discourse. DEI programs are necessary for creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for all students, faculty, and staff, and they help promote critical thinking, civil discourse, and a broader understanding of different perspectives.

Arguing that DEI programs prioritize identity politics over academic rigor can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and open inquiry. There is little empirical evidence to support these claims. Scholarship suggests that universities with strong DEI programs are more likely to foster a culture of intellectual engagement and exchange of ideas.

---

100% not surprised this drivel was posted by you

shiftyandquick said:

---

The fact is that it will be very hard for public universities to recruit good candidates in the future without a tenure track.

I do think that is bad for the state of Texas.

However sometimes people need to FAAFO. And they learn an economics lesson which is if you are not competitive in the marketplace, you will lose. It was be the Texas public that pays the price.

---

Pure supposition.

The flip side of the argument is that it may attract a whole new class of people into the higher education world that ordinarily would not have even thought about going that route because of the existing structure and the fact that if you don't group think along with the admin and professors, you aren't even considered as a candidate.

Microwave Onions said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

Einstein was not a tenured professor when he published his theory of relativity.

---

It was still a revolutionary idea that fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.

A sociological analog might be the revelation of evidence of Fox News' ignominy.

---

Gets embarrassed, comes back with "something something Fox News LOL!!!" Got 'em again you brilliant sonofa*****!

---

It is a misconception that academic freedom allows educators to spout whatever drivel they wish. It is in fact the sole responsibility of the faculty member to teach the full purpose and subject of the curriculum as they see fit, but with the objectives of the course in mind. If those objectives are not met, the faculty member is then fully responsible for the wasted effort and leadership in teaching. As one who invested 38 years in the classroom as a well paid educator, I believe tenure has the potential to taint the quality of instruction and makes abuse of academic freedom possible. The college I taught at never offered tenure, as it should be as in the professional business environment. I'm pleased that I was offered a 1 year contract each year, including at the end of the year I entered retirement.

StonewallAggieDEFENSE said:

---

It is a misconception that academic freedom allows educators to spout whatever drivel they wish. It is in fact the sole responsibility of the faculty member to teach the full purpose and subject of the curriculum as they see fit, but with the objectives of the course in mind. If those objectives are not met, the faculty member is then fully responsible for the wasted effort and leadership in teaching. As one who imvested 38 years in the classroom as a well paid educator, I believe tenure has the potential to taint the quality of instruction and makes abuse of academic freedom possible. The college I taught at never offered tenure, as it should be as in the professional business environment. I'm pleased that I was offered a 1 year contract each year, including at the end of the year I entered retirement.

---

... and that all makes a lot of sense. Should be the standard.

MaxPower said:

---

Sadly this will be used by lefty admins to get rid of whatever old fart conservatives are left to bring in more woke idiots.

---

It is going to downgrade the quality of the university. Regardless of political persuasion, what top leading researcher would sniff A&M or any Texas school.

Saxsoon said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

Sadly this will be used by lefty admins to get rid of whatever old fart conservatives are left to bring in more woke idiots.

---

It is going to downgrade the quality of the university. Regardless of political persuasion, what top leading researcher would sniff A&M or any Texas school.

---

Actually, we could use a lot more professors that actually teach and less who are consumed with constantly publishing research. True, there's linkage between the two and ongoing research is important to continue advancing the knowledge base, but students often take it in the shorts with "top notch" professors who outsource the teaching to foreign TA's that you can't even understand.

Frankly the big time research is about bringing in dollars to pay the costs of a bloated administrative staff and "enhance the reputation" of the university so they can charge students more for tuition. The same students who get the short end on instruction.

Over-simplified somewhat, but not totally off base either.