The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Statement on Tenure
The AFA responds to the Texas Lieutenant Governor's proposal to abolish tenure at state universities
Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick held a press conference last Friday to respond to the Faculty Council of the University of Texas, which recently passed a resolution reemphasizing the importance of academic freedom at the university and denouncing political interventions in the university curriculum. Patrick declared that he would make it a top priority in the next legislative session to ban the teaching of "critical race theory" at Texas universities, to terminate any faculty member who does so, and to abolish tenure at public universities. This is a disturbing escalation of the Republican war on higher education. Other politicians are likely to follow Patrick's lead, especially if his current crusade proves to be electorally advantageous.
Today the Academic Freedom Alliance released a public statement responding to Patrick's announcement. From the letter:
Tenure protections for university faculty were adopted throughout American higher education in the twentieth century precisely in order to protect faculty from the efforts of politicians, donors, university administrators, and other faculty to suppress ideas that they do not like. The lieutenant governor's proposals strike at the very heart of the academic enterprise by prohibiting the teaching of certain ideas, thus immunizing contrary ideas from intellectual challenge. This, in effect, establishes campus orthodoxies and forbids the expression of dissent. Few things are more toxic to intellectual life.
To fulfill their missions, universities must be places where controversial ideas can be freely debated and where ideas are tested and supported through the consideration of evidence, argument, and analysis and not by subjecting them to popularity contests at the polls, in legislatures, or anywhere else. A free society does not empower politicians—or anyone—to censor ideas they do not like and silence scholars of whom they disapprove.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wouldn’t it be more succinct to simply say Republicans are pussies who are afraid of ideas and incapable of honest discourse?
Yes, that would explain why so many woke lefties shut down discourse and cancel everybody they can to the right of Lenin.
CRT is certainly “objectionable,” but no more so than many ideological theories that are not banned outright, so even if singling out certain content for curricular exclusion were a worthy enterprise, CRT seems like an odd place to start. Putting aside the many high-minded reasons for retaining a merit-based tenure system (which are compelling), its elimination at public universities would place those schools at an enormous competitive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting and retaining faculty. A more effective way of irreversibly condemning public universities to second-tier (or worse) status would be difficult to imagine.
That may be true, but I would like to see the evidence supporting that statement.
If Texas can demonstrate that leftist professors create a hostile environment based on race or other protected factors, what is the problem? Why do lefties hate civil rights laws so much? Public schools have an obligation to prevent that kind of hostile environment.
You do know tenure doesn't protect anyone who has been demonstrated* to have violated state or federal laws (such as discrimination law), right?
Oh, it's Michael P, of course he doesn't.
*demonstrate means here something different than 'tried in the court of Michael P or Tucker Carlson's mind, of course
Hmmmm. . . kinda torn here.
From an higher education point of view, tenure is an absolute must.
But from a tax-payer point of view, it seems like tenure takes away from our right to have our taxes used the way we like (via the election process).
Sure there are folks who don't want CRT taught but there are also folks who don't want conspiracy theories taught either, e.g. a class on the "Stolen Election."
I'm 100% pro higher education and am also a tax payer.
Hmmm....
Nothing to be torn about.
You can either have functioning universities or have assholes like Patrick deciding what can and cannot be taught.
Take your pick.
Woke universities are "functioning"? Functioning at what, indoctrinating the next generation of woke snowflakes who cancel everybody they can?
"the next generation of woke snowflakes "
Someone didn't learn about irony from his (tenured) professors...
Patrick and his ilk's entire goal is to protect Texas kids from what those nefarious professors are saying.
It's Patrick&Co. who want to treat the students like snowflakes.
The best example of this is that Youngkin ad with the mother literally wringing her hands talking about how having to read Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison's Beloved as a senior in an AP English class gave him nightmares. That's like King of Snowflake Mountain right there.
I don't think it takes away tax-payer's rights any more than, say, government having to abide by its contracts with individuals.
apedad....maybe the solution is 'tenure lite'. Like yourself, I recognize taxpayers ought to have some kind of recourse, since it is their money being spent. And yeah, there should be strong protection for an instructor that teaches in the classroom. What is less clear is how far that protection extends, and under what circumstance.
I don't see tenure as an 'either/or' kind of deal (as in, either we have tenure or schools are terrible).
What do you think about banning CRT?
Truthfully I have divided feelings about it, bernard11.
To me, it is ludicrous to 'ban' an idea.
How ideas are presented to our children in taxpayer funded schools is a different matter entirely; it is perfectly appropriate for parents to exercise a significant degree of control over the education of their child. Quite honestly, I wish more parents would get more involved in their child's education.
How should they be presented?
So as not to upset Mommy and Daddy, or complete with their rationales?
As an elective bernard, not as a required course. Similarly of English literature or Introduction to Engineering
Never understood tenure. Why do universities need protection which no other business needs or has? The whole concept only makes sense for government jobs, s the proper solution is to get rid of government schools.
Note to the mentally challenged: government funding for schools is entirely distinct from government-run schools. The only people who refuse to acknowledge the distinction are those who want government indoctrination and know that separating the two would be the end of their propaganda mills and the woke agenda.
"Never understood tenure. "
No one is shocked to learn that.
Hint for you: it might have something to do with the nature of the work!
Because our universities are not just businesses.
We give grants to schools with public goods in mind other than 'government indoctrination.'
Work on sounding less like QAnon next time, pls.
"Never understood tenure. Why do universities need protection which no other business needs or has?"
The practice has a solid business reason. The world's best universities grant tenure as a retention mechanism and as a stimulus to faculty thinking about topics outside of their narrow boxes. To have a prayer of competing other major research universities do the same.
If you aim at mediocracy, you're likely to wind up in the bottomm quartile.
As to public colleges / universities, they should be shut down. (Providing / subsidizing higher education is not a proper function of government.)
As to private ones -- let them do as they like (i.e., offer tenure to professors, or not).
You too need to distinguish funding vs running. Government-run schools are indoctrination centers, nothing more, nothing less, an affront to liberty, an abomination which should end. Whether taxpayers should pay for schooling is an entirely separate matter.
Our system of land grant universities, and the affordable baseline educated populace they enabled, is a public good. It is part of how we won the Cold War.
If you only see indoctrination centers, it's because you prefer the stories you tell yourself to actually looking into what schools do.
Could they do better? No doubt. But talk to some grad students sometime; see if they're being indoctrinated.
"Government-run schools are indoctrination centers,"
And thank God for the service academies.
" As to public colleges / universities, they should be shut down. "
Education-disdaining, antisocial malcontents who hate modern America are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Good idea Ed. Then we can have an even stupider citizenry than we have now
"To fulfill their missions, universities must be places where controversial ideas can be freely debated and where ideas are tested and supported through the consideration of evidence, argument, and analysis and not by subjecting them to popularity contests at the polls, in legislatures, or anywhere else. A free society does not empower politicians—or anyone—to censor ideas they do not like and silence scholars of whom they disapprove."
Ironic. Isn't it?
It'd be nice if that were true, but CRT proponents don't believe in open debate. CRT is the end of debate. Are schools seeped in CRT hothouses of open debate or closed off societies where any anti-CRT views are censored and punished?
It'd be one thing if CRT was taught in the "this is what the Nazis believed" kinda way, but that's not how it is taught. It is taught in the "here's what you must believe, comrade" way, which is not education, but indoctrination. It's not just theory, it's activism.
Plus, it's based on made up nonsense that assumes the truth of its underlying premise without actually examining it. It's the Intelligent Design of social science.
Plus, there's increasingly no way to get away from it. Try going through an ED School without being compelled to buy into this absolute dogshit.
Not only that, but it is evident that universities, such as UT are infusing every single subject, including science and medicine with this racist propaganda, and the pro-CRT folks are demanding it be taught in every subject and that every faculty member and every new hire adhere to its principles. Where is the open debate? CRT IS the attack on academic freedom.
Plus, forcing people to believe that the color of their skin dictates everything in their lives or that it makes them a perpetual oppressor or victim is evil, discriminatory, and unlawful as it creates a hostile educational environment no matter what color you are.
CRT is an evil worldview and like most authoritarian worldviews, it cannot survive scrutiny of honest and open debate, which is why it requires fealty and seeks to crush dissent.
So, unfortunately, it's the state's resources being used to peddle this trash, and thus the state ought to have some say in how those resources are used. I don't like "banning" any subject, but certainly limiting its impact and its proponents through legislation seems to be a worthwhile endeavor.
Firing every single university employee with the word "diversity" or "equity" in their job title or description would be a good start.
Did you learn all that at Glenn Beck University? Because it doesn't seem like you've learned it from any actual experience on campuses.
It is painfully obvious that you don't know or understand what CRT actually is. You seem to have a good grasp of it as it is incorrectly portrayed by conservative media.
"you don't know or understand what CRT actually is"
whatever it is, it does not belong as a part of every subject (if that charge is true)
Balance your media intake.
About the only thing these disaffected misfits are good for is mockery. Society has rightly rejected them and their ugly, obsolete thinking. Until they are replaced, scorn is what they deserve.
The universities have become incubators of totalitarianism. Their faculties are enemies of free inquiry. The institutions need radical reform. If it doesn't come from inside--and none of the Conspirators have ever made a single proposal in that direction--it will have to come from outside. Prof. Whittington would better employ his time reforming his colleagues than railing about Texas politicians.
Where do you get this nonsense? For starters Whittington spends a great deal of his time trying to reform his colleagues, he talks about it all the time here and elsewhere and heads up an entire organization that spends most of this time doing that. You don't know what in the world you're talking about and yet feel so strongly about it...
Sporadic anodyne urgings to colleagues to cease their current practices fall well short of the radical reform that is required.
Yeah, I get you'd think speech falls short of combating bad speech...
Either you haven't been to a school in a long time, or you are a crazy person, seeing totalitarianism behind every tree.
I see totalitarianism in the treatment of Erika Christakis, Amy Wax, and Ilya Shapiro, yes.
Anecdotes and confirmation bias don't actually tell you what's going on.
I hate anecdotes too. Give me some "hard" data on, say, the number of Republicans given tenure at HYP this year. Anyone else who, like Prof. Whittington, claims that the universities are bastions of intellectual freedom is welcome to chime in with confirmatory hard data.
Burden is on you, chief - you're the one tossing around all these accusations.
No, the burden is on Prof. Whittington who wants us to do something, i.e., defend tenure. I don't find him persuasive, given what I perceive as the current lack of intellectual freedom in academia, so I will continue to vote Republican and decline to make alumni contributions. If Prof. Whittington has some evidence that the protections of tenure are permitting the universities to function as bastions of intellectual freedom, let him produce it.
" The universities have become incubators of totalitarianism. Their faculties are enemies of free inquiry. "
That's hilarious, coming from the type of disaffected right-wing whose educational preferences likely tend toward Wheaton, Liberty, Regent, Hillsdale, Grove City, Ouachita Baptist, and downscale, backwater religious schooling . . the "schools" that enforce censorship and dogma while flouting academic freedom, teaching nonsense, and suppressing science and history to flatter childish superstition and silly dogma.
Republicans don't need to destroy higher education. The system is destroying itself, and this is apparent to those outside the ivory tower.
While higher education in this country may be working very well for overpaid, underworked professors in their cozy lifetime sinecures, it is failing students by crushing them with debt, while not providing them marketable skills.
Conservatives operate shitty schools (fourth tier, unranked, sketchily accredited) that deserve nothing more than derision.
Our strongest research and teaching institutions are operated by, for, and in the liberal-libertarian mainstream.
This makes people like F.D. Wolf seethe, because right-wingers have ceded quality education to better Americans, part of the reason conservatives can't compete in the culture war.
"This is a disturbing escalation of the Republican war on higher education."
The war was declared a long time ago by the people running "higher education" when they decided to pervert education into propaganda and indoctrination. The Republicans are just finally beginning to fight back.
Why should GOP taxpayers support the people who have declared themselves their enemies? They're free to go start their own private universities, without public support.
Were they a bunch of state-wide elected officials? I'm a little more worried about illiberalism with them. I get YMMV.
And banning CRT will help that how?
Isn't presenting them with unfamiliar points of view one way to help them think critically?
Just telling students that everything Daddy and Mommy and the preacher said is absolutely true isn't going to do much for their education.
"What is the function of a university?"
In Texas, at least, that's easy: FOOTBALL!
Maybe at third tier schools but certainly not at the MITs and CalTechs of the world
Of all the problems with our educational outcomes, learning too much about America's racial issues really doesn't ping the list.
And I'd bet you'll find Hayek in your college econ courses as well; don't make up grievances.
How long has it been since you've actually been in a college economics class?
You don't know what you're talking about. Besides, Keynes is rather important. As noted left-wing radical Greg Mankiw said in 2008,
IF you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront.
So maybe he's worth devoting a fair amount of time to.
If college isn't teaching students to write better and think critically right now, how will CRT help in any way resolve that problem?
"Read this article. Write a short paper explaining its main points, and state what parts of it you agree or disagree with."
Sometimes, coming up against something new stimulates thinking.
Besides, CRT might actually change some students' minds about some things. I know that's what Patrick&Co. want to prevent, but they might learn that it is important to think carefully about our preconceived notions, etc.
" the state-wide elected officials have legitimate authority behind them"
Lol, do you know where you are young man?
" more and more courses taught by grad students or adjuncts,"
At the third tier places and community colleges, yes. At top tier universities not.
" more and more courses taught by grad students or adjuncts,"
How about real statistics for major research universities?
Not at Yale, to my recollection. Marx and Lukacs, yes, though more in poli sci than econ, to be honest.
OK, chief.
Thing is, you're the one making up grievances, I'm just pointing out you are.
Nonsense.
Hayek's notion of the market as a great decentralized calculator of optimum prices, etc., is a commonplace.
His macroeconomic ideas, like those of the other Austrians, aren't much taught, because they have pretty much been proven to be nonsense.
It is very clear you've not set foot on a campus in a very long time, and prefer whatever weird dystopia you've ginned up in your head to reality.
I'm mostly talking to grad students in STEM, which isn't directly on point, but you are so clearly just spinning whatever yarn you *feel* is right based on whatever right-wing nonsense tells you.
[Keynesianism] is the default in economics departments.
As it should be.
So we've admitted that colleges don't teach critical thinking or better writing, and we've moved onto saying that CRT is a neutral variable?
We haven't admitted shit. Just pointed out that CRT, like many ideas, can be used to encourage critical thinking.
Yeah, we fell for your dumbass trap of correcting you for making shit up.
No, we still tell you it's not a thing.
QA pointed it out to some other dumbass 2 hours before this post.
You're going to prove to yourself what you want to prove to yourself though.
You a student wants to study such things fine. They just don't belong in Physics 101 or Chemistry 101.
But then 25% of Yale freshmen want to take the "happiness" course.
In my day that was an after class job.
Or student could be compelled to take History of Religions
Oh bullshit.
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You're just making up crap.