Questions of Tenure, The

Academe, Nov/Dec 2002 by O'Neil, Robert M

The Questions of Tenure

Richard P. Chait, ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002, 334 pp.

"What? Not another book about faculty tenure?" might be the immediate reaction of a jaded observer to the publication of Richard Chait's The Questions of Tenure. In this case, such a pejorative response would be gravely misguided, and for several reasons. Indeed, the very fact that much has recently been written and said about academic freedom and tenure enhances the value of this latest contribution to the literature.

First and foremost, Chait and the authors who join him in this volume are eminently qualified to discuss the current status of academic tenure. They report on a range of recent studies that have addressed such crucial issues as how tenure affects faculty governance, what is actually happening to tenuretrack faculty within the academic personnel system, the experiences of institutions that have experimented with alternatives to conventional tenure, and relevant patterns of faculty employment in other developed nations around the world.

Second, the measured approach of this book enhances its potential value for the academic audience. Noting that there have been more than enough "factually erroneous and ill-reasoned briefs for and against tenure" and that "neither side has a monopoly on diatribe," Chait assures the reader at the outset that his mission is to address not a single issue but rather the multifaceted "questions of tenure" in a way that departs markedly "in substance and tone from these polemics." The ensuing chapters admirably fulfill that promise. While doubts about tenure and analysis of alternatives understandably claim more pages than does a defense of the status quo, staunch defenders of tenure will find ample reassurance that the current system continues to enjoy the overwhelming adherence of faculty and administrators.

Third, this collection of essays provides a most important and thoughtful context, in the form of Chair's own first chapter entitled "Why Tenure? Why Now?" Rather than retracing everything that has been said for and against tenure, Chait revisits the first modem debate about faculty personnel systems in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He reminds us that during and right after the turbulent Vietnam War era, there were several major studies of tenure, notably one conducted by the long-forgotten (though at the time extremely important) Keast Commission jointly established by the AAUP and the American Council on Education (ACE) in 1971. He also notes that there were, a quarter century ago, some notable skeptics if not criticsTodd Furniss of the ACE; Budd Cheit of the University of California, Berkeley; Jim O'Toole of the University of Southern California; and several others whose mildly dissenting views might now profitably be recalled. Even more important, Chair's opening chapter cogently marshals the concerns that various higher education sectors have expressed about tenure in recent times. Regardless of the extent to which a reader might concur with or dissent from any of the points raised here, the statement of the case has nowhere been made better than in this opening chapter. A section on managerial and fiduciary concerns explains clearly why governing boards should raise hard questions about tenure. Another chapter makes wholly understandable faculty concerns about tenure, even if in the end we are assured that most university professors, given the choice, still favor some form of tenure as the basic employment and personnel system. This chapter concludes with a helpful review of "the new environment," reminding us that major shifts in the academic landscape since 1970 have had substantial de facto or indirect implications for the status of tenure.

In addition to the introduction, Chair contributes four immensely valuable chapters to the volume. He reports, for example, the results of a fascinating study of the relationship between tenure and faculty governance, a curiously neglected subject. Not surprisingly, the study found that faculty in non-tenure-track institutions typically "exercised less power and influence" than their counterparts at tenured campuses. The basis for that correlation, however, turns out to be subtler than the conventional wisdom might imply, and reflects as much as anything the governance traditions at those institutions (typically senior research institutions and institutions belonging to the Association of American Universities) where tenure is usually strongest. Institutional leadership also plays a significant role, as does the general campus climate. And a pervasive sense of faculty futility about the governance system reflects factors well beyond tenure or its absence.

The most helpful of Chait's chapters may be one entitled "Gleanings," which concludes the volume. Emphasizing the dazzling variety and diversity of our higher education system, it insists that "context counts." Given the consciously historical nature of the volume, Chair reminds readers that times change in ways of which we are not easily aware when we are caught up in that process. The last two "gleanings" nicely reprise the balance with which the book opened-on one hand, "there is no substitute for the status of tenure" although, on the other hand, "there may be a latent market for tenure reform." We appreciate the nature of that intriguing juxtaposition far better in this coda than when we encountered it on the opening page.