In a Feb. 4 interview with the Associated Press, Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee revived a contentious debate in academia by calling for a reassessment of the tenure process at research universities. The country's highest-paid public university president and the head of the largest university in the nation, Gee acknowledged that while individual professors "should gain recognition at the university for writing the great American novel or for discovering the cure for cancer," the tenure review system as a whole is outdated. In putting forth his support for reform of the tenure system, Gee should be commended simply for his boldness in speaking out against a system in which he himself is deeply invested.
The tenure system was originally introduced in the 1940s following several incidents of first-rate professors being fired by their universities because their research disregarded their respective presidents' political and ideological convictions. Tenure guaranteed them the freedom to pursue their research of interest without risking dismissal from their positions. Many professors still use tenure in this way, waiting the six years until they have made tenure to publish any controversial research.
The main objection to the tenure system is that it is not being applied to the right people or that the professors who do receive it are not necessarily deserving of the award. A major problem for universities, large and small alike, is balancing research and teaching. Undergraduate education especially must contend with the effects of professors putting more effort into research and publishing than into the classroom, all in the name of receiving grants from which his or her department can benefit. According to many, the amount of money a professor brings in through publications in scholarly journals, rather than the quality of their teaching, is the determinant of tenure.
Gee noted that there is no perfect formula for determining who receives tenure and that it will be difficult to revise the system. The corner-cutting solution for many large research universities is to simply look at the quantity of publications, not the quality of them, much less a professor's energy in the classroom. On the other hand, smaller universities tend to put more weight on the teaching aspect than on the research and publication numbers. While this superficially may seem superior, the fact is that smaller universities also need to bring in money from research as well as build up the name and prestige of the school. In effect, a balance needs to be set up, and reform is the only answer. Long-time proponents of the abolishment of tenure, however, must realize that the system stems from idealistic roots and that it can still be used for the betterment of universities on the undergraduate, graduate and research levels.
It is a brave, bold step that Gee took in acknowledging that the system is flawed and should not continue without being reevaluated. As university students, we can look at Gee's sentiments as verification that as America's higher education system as a whole is changing, our best interest is being taken into consideration by those making these important decisions.
