tenure

Tenure Rules at the University System of Georgia

The board of regents proposes sweeping changes that would significantly weaken tenure protections for faculty.

|

Tenure protections at American universities were a central demand of faculty in the early twentieth century. As the American Association of University Professors noted in its influential 1940 Statement on Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure:

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society.

It remains the case that faculty off the tenure track are much more easily dismissed without good cause or procedural protections. When contingent faculty find themselves the subject of student complaints or speech controversies, the result is frequently termination.

One easy way to undermine the tenure system is to not hire professors on the tenure track in the first place, and in recent years a large percentage of instructors at American colleges and universities have been hired on a contingent basis. Some of those positions are entirely justifiable for educational reasons. Part-time instructors can fill short-term demand and can provide students with access to individuals with real-world experience in their subject matter. But many such hires are less justifiable, driven by a desire to keep labor costs low and undermine shared governance in academic affairs.

A more difficult path to undermining the tenure system is to weaken tenure protections even for those who have it. Numerous universities have taken steps in that direction with "post-tenure review" procedures that periodically reevaluate tenured faculty with the possibility of dismissing them. The board of regents for the University System of Georgia, which includes the University of Georgia and Georgia State University, is currently considering a significant revision to the existing tenure system that would give administrators powerful new tools to dismiss tenured faculty.

The proposal can be found here. It is discussed in detail in a new article at Inside Higher Ed. The AAUP has detailed its objections in a letter to the regents here, and the regents have made some modest changes in language to the original proposal in response.

The proposal would empower administrators unilaterally to dismiss faculty after a poor post-tenure review without normal procedural protections or peer review. As the AAUP notes, this is an "extraordinary" exception to traditional tenure protections and would shift substantial power over the continued employment of a professor from the faculty to the university administration.

Moreover, it creates an entirely new option for firing tenured faculty. Although the current procedures for removing faculty "for cause" would stay in place, they would be supplemented by another option of removing professors "other than for cause" in pursuance of future policies that the board might adopt and with none of the procedural protections that exist in cases of dismissal for cause. As the AAUP notes:

The doorway opened by the new language is a wide one: if any institution of higher education can dismiss any faculty members without affordance of due process for unspecified reasons—as long as those reasons are not among the listed grounds for dismissal—then the system of tenure and the academic freedom it is designated to protect are severely compromised, as are the appointment security and academic freedom of non-tenured faculty members.

If the Georgia system adopts these changes, it would not be surprising if others followed suit.

NEXT: So Far, the Supreme Court's Hybrid Oral Argument Format Is Working Well

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve never understood the rationale behind tenure, and why, if it is so vital to professors, it should not apply to all other jobs.

    1. “When contingent faculty find themselves the subject of student complaints or speech controversies, the result is frequently termination.”

      100% the fault of the scumbag lawyer profession. Schools do not want to face ruinous litigation.

      1. If they are fired so easily, what is the point of tenure?

        1. “Contingent faculty” don’t have tenure.
          “Tenure-track” faculty get tenure.

          We’re seen the result of “academic freedom”. It protects mainly a lot of trash. I won’t miss it if it goes.

    2. Two reasons.

      1. There used to be more diversity of thought, and need to protect diversity of thought. The entire concept behind the university system was to research and investigate, especially areas that were unique, different, and so on.

      1. That’s one (1).

        And tenure didn’t protect diversity of thought.

        Shouldn’t failure have consequences?

  2. Perhaps this is a reaction to the widely held belief that university faculty are not receptive to diverse approaches nor inclusive of alternate views.

    1. Or perhaps they are inclusive of alternate views that the Board of Regents doesn’t like?

      Right wing cancel culture at work.

      1. Why should the right wing play by your rules?

        Given the limits on his suggestions as to why the life of civilizations might be short, this looks like Prog eating Lib: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/mit-cancels-lecture-by-u-chicago-geophysicist-dorian-abbot-over-under-pressure-from-campus-mob/

        …but it’s where we are.

        1. “Why should the right wing play by your rules?”

          Rules are for suckers.

  3. Good.

    Woke chickens coming home to roost.

    1. Good for the goose, good for the gander?

      1. Lots of gooses losing tenure these days?

          1. You need a refresher on gooses, ganders, and idioms.

              1. Don’t be silly. Chico can’t even speak, much less in idioms!

        1. S_0,
          What is it with the animosity of the right-wingers toward university professors. Maybe it is the envy of the stupid concerning superior intelligence.

          1. The right hates all institutions. That was a big appeal of Trump – he’d tear it all down.

            I actually think some weakening of ‘for cause’ may be a good idea – tenure can make for some awful teachers some years down the line.
            But an ‘other than for cause’ with an incentive to keep the reason secret seems an awful idea.

          2. “envy of the stupid concerning superior intelligence”

            Sure, keep telling yourself that.

            “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them”

            1. The Internet wasn’t made by some high school dropouts, Bob.

              An Educated populace is pretty important to our standard of living in this great country of ours.

              1. the internet was not made by left wing humanities professors either.

                Most colleges are intellectual uni-cultures, actively hostile to conservative views.

                You are going to get a counterattack.

                1. Most colleges are intellectual uni-cultures, actively hostile to conservative views.

                  You base this assertion on….?

                  Let me guess – the occasional post by EV and some RW rants you hear on OAN or somewhere.

                  1. Your guesses are extremely stupid and ignorant.

                    And you think no one notices this.

                2. “You are going to get a counterattack.”

                  Let the ankle-nipping begin!

                  1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                    Waste of brain cells warning
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                    For any one reading the above, Kookland is performing his weird trick of linking to some random music video. I didn’t follow it, but hovering over it shows “youtube”. So there’s no need to click on it.

              2. “The Internet wasn’t made by some high school dropouts, Bob.”

                It was college dropouts.

                1. Vinton Gray Cerf, the father of the Internet, has a PHD from Stanford, hardly a High School. He inventer TCP/IP with Bob Kahn who has a PhD from Pinceton. They built and demonstrated ARPANET.

            2. Just the kind of comment that I’ve come to expect from you.

              1. Maybe, just maybe, you ought not to call 70 million people stupid and envious.

                1. You don’t speak for them.

                2. Okay, Bob, you win. Only 50 million are stupid and/or envious

                  1. The Armchair wants humility from PhD’s.
                    He want new toys for Christmas.
                    And he wants the Orange Clown in the White House.
                    AL,
                    Don’t hold your breath waiting.

          3. “S_0,
            What is it with the animosity of the right-wingers toward university professors. Maybe it is the envy of the stupid concerning superior intelligence”

            Maybe it’s because of the smug-superior attitude of some university professors? How they act like they’re “better people” than those “right wingers” because of their educational achievements.

            It’s like how rich people act like they’re better than poor people, a “superior class of person”, because they are rich. Or how white people used to act like they were better than black people, because of their “innate superiority”. Or how men acted like they were better than women because of the “innate superiority” of the male gender. Or how Christians believed they were innately “superior” to heathens.

            And so on… Maybe it’s that attitude of smug superiority that leads to resentment. Rather than behaving as if everyone is equal and deserving of respect….

            Something to consider. Perhaps practicing humility may lead to better relations….

            1. That chip on your shoulder doesn’t seem like it’s about some rude professors.

              1. Well, Don wanted to know…

                Here’s more on why, from other groups of people.

                https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/elites-think-theyre-better-than-you

                1. You’re falling for the oldest populist trick in the book.

                  1. Your pal Bernard:

                    [“]Most colleges are intellectual uni-cultures, actively hostile to conservative views.[“]

                    You base this assertion on….?

                    Let me guess – the occasional post by EV and some RW rants you hear on OAN or somewhere.

                    This “trick” is called gaslighting: “Don’t believe your lying eyes.” It’s not “populist”, is it?

                    1. Neither you nor AL claim to have any personal experience regarding university culture. You just declare what is true.

                      You are parroting others nutpicking, and telling you what all those mean old professors say about you behind your back. It is fine for bernard to point out that your sources have agendas.

                      Your eyes do not lie. But you are reading people that are lying to you. Exercise some critical thinking when other people declare you should get very angry at things you’ve not seen yourself.

            2. “It’s like how rich people act like they’re better than poor people, a “superior class of person”, because they are rich.”

              This isn’t objectionable, when the reason they’re rich is because they did something to get rich. When they’re list of achievements consists of “picked the right mommy and daddy” to come out of, considerably less perfectly acceptable. In the long term, that’s a driver in the Chinese dynastic cycle. Eventually, the poor people say, “fine, if money makes someone better, then we’ll take yours.” and the formerly rich people find themselves lined up in the public square looking up at a guillotine or gallows.

        2. “Lots of gooses losing tenure these days?”

          Gooses is a verb. Geese is a noun. Which type of word were you looking for in that sentence?

  4. “If the Georgia system adopts these changes, it would not be surprising if others followed suit.” – definitely … universities are very much a herd animal in the policy department. There is rarely anymore any interest in differentiation or providing unique experiences.

    That said, the profound difficulties facing firing of university administrators suggests that this tenure modification might not be a practical concern in the short term.

    1. The question will be, as always, “what exactly is the reason we want to get rid of this fellow, anyway?”
      Will it be objection that science isn’t coming up with the preferred answers? The Earth does move, evolution by natural selection does happen, and climate change is happening. These facts are unwelcome to some entrenched power blocs.

  5. For *public* universities, at least, academic freedom enjoys a fair amount of protection based on grounds having nothing to do with tenure status (see, e.g., Meriwether v. Hartop).

    1. If your protection is dependent on the court system, it’s not as firm as you might hope it to be.

  6. It’s worth noting that, these days, the opposite of tenure-track is not necessarily “contingent” or adjunct…

    Many major universities have been developing entire alternate tracks of faculty that can include long-term or even indefinite contracts, and often with substantial job security provisions (albeit short of tenure). Depending on the university and department, terminology may include Lecturer, Teaching Professor, Clinical Professor, etc. At my institution, for example, some people at such ranks even get appointed to substantial administrative roles, or run search committees, etc.

    Whether such developments are good or bad is another matter, but the fact is there is now a range of faculty categories with varying levels of job security, governance input, status levels, etc.

    1. These other faculty ranks make very good sense especilly for Clinical Professors and Professors of the Practice

  7. What surprises me about this debate is the lack of reference to contract law. Does not the granting of tenure constitute a contract which at least modifies the usual practice of at-will employment?

    1. The contract doesn’t run in perpetuity – most faculty handbooks are renewable at periodic intervals as frequently as every year. The university bylaws (which the handbooks are invariably subject to) allow for changes to the bylaws by a vote of the Trustees. And finally, most faculty agreements/handbooks have “exigent circumstances” clauses in them.

    2. “What surprises me about this debate is the lack of reference to contract law. Does not the granting of tenure constitute a contract which at least modifies the usual practice of at-will employment?”

      Employment contracts are often limited in duration by operation of common law, to 7 years. Pop into an entertainment law class to see some of the ways that have been found to get around this. Recording contracts were limited to the production of 7 albums, and some recording artists have actually managed to produce 7 albums in 7 years. Then there’s Guns N’ Roses and Chinese Democracy.

  8. The contract doesn’t run in perpetuity – most faculty handbooks are renewable at periodic intervals as frequently as every year. The university bylaws (which the handbooks are invariably subject to) allow for changes to the faculty handbook by a vote of the Trustees. And finally, most faculty agreements/handbooks have “exigent circumstances” clauses in them.

  9. What other profession requires life-time job guarantees to attract applicants? And why do chemistry professors need the free speech protection tenure affords to do their work? Do they speak out against the bigotry of acids against bases? Five year contracts should work fine – look at the NFL. If you really deserve a job for a lifetime, someone else will hire you.

    1. LOL if you don’t think there’s a lot of fights over points of view in science.

      1. There certainly have been in the past, with no reason to assume there wouldn’t be a continuing trend. One of the most famous experiments in the history of science firmly established that there is no luminiferous ether, and there was only a couple more decades of effort before the fans of luminiferous ether gave up and faded away. Not all scientific ideas find acceptance right away.

    2. And why do chemistry professors need the free speech protection tenure affords to do their work? Do they speak out against the bigotry of acids against bases?

      No, but they may speak out on any number of non-chemistry-related topics. Should a MA chemistry professor who loudly supports Trump lose his job because of it?

      And of course there are departments – history, political science, economics among others – that inevitably deal with topics of public debate, or political issues. Should the University of Alabama, say, be allowed to fire a history professor who calls Robert E. Lee a traitor?

      1. Bernard,
        You allude to a valuable point. The tenure system almost assures that the balance of faculty in the various departments remains relatively stable over a several year time scale

      2. Should the University of Alabama, say, be allowed to fire a history professor who calls Robert E. Lee a traitor?

        Or Hitler right about the Jews?

        What’s your limiting principle here?

        1. “What’s your limiting principle here?”

          Tenure is intended to protect academic freedom, because sometimes following truth, leads to important toes being trod upon. We want academics to follow truth wherever it leads.

      3. “No, but they may speak out on any number of non-chemistry-related topics. Should a MA chemistry professor who loudly supports Trump lose his job because of it?”

        Maybe, depending on what, exactly, he’s loudly supporting Trump about. When and where might be relevant, as well. If he’s loudly supporting Trump after Trump unilaterally told the Department of Education to stop issuing student loans, that might be against the university’s interest enough to justify being sidelined from the university community. Or if he’s giving Trump campaign speeches to students instead of teaching chemistry. Note that none of these things are actually specific to Trump, you could insert any other politician instead of Trump and get the same results.

    3. “What other profession requires life-time job guarantees to attract applicants?”

      federal judiciary.

  10. Don – As someone in academia, and one with somewhat heterodox views as a conservative, if you were King of Academia for a day, what reforms would you make to tenure?

    1. Interesting question S_0.
      I think the most important aspect is that the standards remain stable and that they are applied relatively uniformly from one department to the next.
      As a slight change, I’d like to see that clinical professors and professors of the practice have some small fraction of annual support form the university. This would be practical if the number of such faculty were strictly limited to a small 5 – 10% of the size of tenured plus tenure track faculty. It probably is not needed a major medical schools with multiple teaching hospitals.
      In every discipline some aspects are more favored in time. Hence there is always a competition for tenure track slots. That is healthy. But it also means that some sub-disciplines are very difficult to get through the whole department. Our departmental division ran into that a few years ago. I’d like to see some lowering of the barrier, but I cannot think of an easily articulated manner.

      1. Absolutely cosign as to professors of the practice.

        Social science, apparently, doesn’t have tenure as an integrated part of their career trajectory. You can be top of your field and be untenured, or a nobody and have it. And they do pretty well, it seems like. But they also have a pretty weird culture.
        I learned this talking to someone who was trying to write grants for social science and added a tenure requirement. That got immediate pushback from the field.

        1. If you’re getting pushback from the field on a tenure requirement, require something that would be as effective as tenure would be. Say, for example, that if the professor and university separate during the period when the grant is still active, the money follows the professor and doesn’t stay with the university. That will help you keep your funding of long-term research projects fairly stable. By which I mean, you won’t see universities firing research professors over trivial matters. On the other hand, you might wind up with the guy running the 20-year study having to teach introductory courses.

          1. Following the applicant is the usual practice.

            But the purpose of the grant was capacity building. In which case they wanted a way to prevent the prof, newly flush with success, from leaving the school for greener pastures. Thus, perversely, ensuring the grant impoverished the schools that it went to.

  11. “(2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability” That jumped out at me. I think what it really does is make the profession attractive to people who are worried they couldn’t justify their continued employment over a 30 year career.

    1. tk
      Ridiculous. Law professors tend to be the students with the very best grades, who then went on to do prestigious clerkships. Law firms fight and kill to get those people. If you work at a law firm, you will earn twice, or triple, or more, compared to what you will earn in academia. (And, if you make partner, of course, the sky’s the limit.) SO, universities offer tenure, in order to attract the best the the brightest. Now, being a professor has lots of other benefits (extremely reasonable working hours, intellectually-interesting work, etc), so there’s no doubt that universities would still attract *some* of these top students without tenure…or with only a gelded version of tenure. But, of course, not as many.

      And if you think free speech on college campuses is threatened now . . . we all agree that this would be far far worse without tenure. (Some may find this a feature and not a bug. Not me. But my sister and dad are/were tenured profs, so I admit to being biased, having heard their stories for years.)

      1. Yeah — abolishing tenure would likely accelerate academia’s descent into mediocrity and groupthink.

        The VC itself is an excellent example of this. Adler (who is not exactly a General in the Trump army) had to publish pseudonymously prior to receiving tenure.

        Similarly, there are a number of left-leaning academics that still believe in concepts like truth and objectivity. I am thinking, for example, of the various historians who pointed out that lots of the 1619 Project was complete nonsense. Do you think they would have been as willing to do so if they had to answer to their department commissar afterward?

        1. “abolishing tenure would likely accelerate academia’s descent into mediocrity and groupthink.”

          Wouldn’t help, but that isn’t the main threat. Research can touch some pretty live wires. Take, for example the heliocentric model of the universe. There were a bunch of religious folk who were just dead sure that if the geocentric model of the universe were to ever be displaced, it would be the ruin of religion, so they suppressed the hell our of Kepler and Copernicus and Galileo. Didn’t work, and geocentrism was replaced by heliocentrism among scientists and from there, to the general public. And then religion faltered and fell away, because people didn’t need any of the things that religion gives them if the planets revolve around the sun rather than the Earth. At least it makes sense when the people who make their living from the fossil fuel industry fight the realization that their life’s work is causing great devastation in the US and around the world. What’s the sense in taking the side of the virus in a war between people of the US vs. a foreign virus? I don’t get it, but there are fairly clearly people who are fighting for their right to spread the virus, and they are resistant to taking any measure to limit the spread of the virus.

      2. “Ridiculous. Law professors tend to be the students with the very best grades, who then went on to do prestigious clerkships.”

        OK, but most academic fields aren’t competing with law firms.

        1. Fair point. I think my point holds for all the professional schools (Medicine, Dentistry, MBA programmes, etc). But, yeah, if you’re a Latin and Aramaic scholar with a Ph.D; I’d agree that your job opportunities are somewhat limited in the private sector. 🙂

        2. “OK, but most academic fields aren’t competing with law firms.”

          Engineering schools are competing with engineering firms. Nursing schools are competing with hospitals, and b-school is competing with literally every business that exists.

      3. sm811,

        I don’t think law professors are the best example here, or even a good example.

        Let’s talk about other (dare I say real?) academic fields. It takes several years of specialized training to become an academic, and it typically takes what, 5-6 years, after that to be eligible for tenure. At that point you’ve invested a significant fraction of your life into the business, and in many cases that investment is worthless outside the academy.

        Further, jobs aren’t that plentiful. So it’s not like you have recourse to the market if you get fired.

        Now, it happens that the vast majority os jobs are at state-run schools, and those that aren’t are generally at donor-financed places.

        Does it make sense that you can be fired if you piss off a donor, or some doofus legislator, because you said something nasty about Robert E. Lee?

        1. Bernard,
          In my field college through PhD is typically 8 to 9 years. Most academics get a 2 to 3 post-doctoral fellowship before comin in as an assistant professor. With a tenure decision in about 6 years.
          So yes, a considerable part of one’s life just as you say.

          1. In my field, people without any academic credential at all can become elite professionals, but this is becoming increasingly rare, as more and more employers want to see a relevant degree to hire for even entry-level positions.

            Additionally, professional certifications are often requested, if not demanded. The workaround is that you can start by earning the professional certifications that are relevant to the job you’d like to have, and flexible academic institutions will extend academic credit for earning the certification.

            So a person who wants to be a network engineer can spend a year learning the necessary knowledge and skills, go out and pay to be tested for a CompTIA Network+ certification, and then go learn enough Cisco-specific knowledge and skills to become a Cisco Certified Networking Professional (a non-trivial expenditure of time and effort and money) by self-study, and then, there are schools which will award academic credit for being a CCNP, reducing the time to complete a degree by at least a year. Or, you can earn a degree in IT, then set out to certify your skills. And what will the interviewer ask you about? What have you been doing for the last year, and for who, using which tools and methods? Very little inquiry into your education and certification history. But you better have the right education and certification history listed on your CV, or you won’t get that interview.

        2. Further, jobs aren’t that plentiful. So it’s not like you have recourse to the market if you get fired.

          Of course you do. I hope you don’t teach economics. Because then you SHOULD be fired.

          1. What happens to the supply of labor in national markets that are demand-limited?

            1. Lots of people still hope for a career in the NBA despite the fact that the teams employ just 12 players each.

      4. ” Law professors tend to be the students with the very best grades, who then went on to do prestigious clerkships. Law firms fight and kill to get those people. ”

        Meh. Law professors tend to be graduates of the same 12 law schools. As if all the other law schools weren’t teaching the exact same subject using the exact same methods.

  12. I can’t find the partisan angle to this one, even after reading the comments, but this is the Volokh Conspiracy, so there must be one.

    1. You can’t find your butt with both hands an a map, so without an obvious (even to you) partisan angle you’re lost.

      FIFY

    2. Sometimes your proprietor gives too much weight to partisan concerns, and sometimes it’s purely personal concern. Not everything has to be partisan all the time.

  13. I feel like this Professor Whittington post is missing some really important context.
    What specifically prompted the Board of Regents to change their tenure policy?
    Why is the BoR proposing these changes now, at this point in time?

    I find it hard to believe the BoR members all Vulcan mind-melded one fine Georgia morning and collectively said, “You know what? I want to screw with tenure protection.” And then this proposal came together all by itself. No, I think I want to know more of the context behind all of this before categorically condemning it.

    I don’t favor messing with tenure protections as a general matter. Removal for cause (i.e. like diddling around with students)? Sure, you’re gone. Removal because you’re an ideological heretic? Uh, no. I am far more pragmatic about ideological heretics; better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t.

    1. Good comment, XY.

    2. “Why is the BoR proposing these changes now, at this point in time?”
      C_XY,
      My guess is the money. In the STEM fields a tenure track professor should be bringing in $1M in outside money each year to be considered for tenure. For its part the university is putting up 2.5 times the salary for the time until the tenure decision. By getting many more employees at less than 50% time that is saving a lot in 1) benefits and 2) salary (which is generally lower)

      1. Could be, Don Nico. That being said, the onus is on Professor Whittington to provide that context. Otherwise, this post could be, what is the word I am looking for….misleading.

        Great info on tenure track professors and expected revenues.

        1. Officially, of course, there isn’t a number that a research professor is required to meet, and grants are just one of many factors that goes into deciding whether to keep him (or her) on the faculty.

    3. I am far more pragmatic about ideological heretics; better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t.

      It’s not about “heretics”. It’s about the Hive Mind currently in control. Obviously you don’t despise it as much as some of us do.

      1. Unironic use of hive mind is not the sign of serious thinking. And I’m someone who does think there is a bias problem and affirmative action for conservative profs is good practice.

        More importantly, how does changing tenure rules deal with ideological bias? Because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. Unless you’re like Bob and just want suffering.

        1. ” how does changing tenure rules deal with ideological bias?”

          It makes it easier to dispense with people who blurt out the truth at inopportune times. In Texas, this means that there won’t be much research on climate change. West Virginia won’t be doing any research on any energy source that doesn’t involve burning coal. In Georgia, the verboten subject of research might involve embryology, because if you discover that 5-week-old fetuses don’t really have heartbeats, it’ll upset their planned fetal-heartbeat anti-abortion law. If you do reasearch in North Carolina that shows that trans-sexual people are mostly using bathrooms to pee in, and NOT to commit sex crimes in, that would be something they just don’t want to hear in the legislature. So if you published “even trans people need to pee sometimes” in Nature, you might find your tenure doesn’t protect you as much as you might have hoped if your contract renewal comes up the same time as the legislature is debating how much to fund the UNC basketball team’s educational side business.

    4. This is a rough time for the education business. Their business model is based on gathering people from far and wide to come, receive the wisdom, and leave their parents’ or their rich Uncle from Washington, D.C.’s money in the coffers.

      The pandemic came and told people not to travel or gather, and that’s bad for eductional systems not adapable enough to go to distance-learning.
      there’s a lot of turmoil in the biz. A lot of people looking around, and wondering just how safe their income actually is. Engineering professors are probably fine. Comparative European Literature professors are probably already packing. And there are states that have traidionally been very supportive of their state educational system, that are thinking their states might not be able to maintain a high level of support, and at the other end there are states whose state educational support is highly dependent on how well the football team did last year. (Last year’s campaign was seen as a bit of a disappointment in Georgia). The time to push through changes in terms of employment is when the employees aren’t at all confident of even having a job, and thus will accept whatever terms you throw at them.

Please to post comments