The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
State "Higher Ed Reform" Roundup: North Dakota
North Dakota attack on tenure barely defeated
Republican state legislatures across the country are debating significant reforms in state university systems. Some of the reform proposals are fairly modest, but others would substantially transform how higher education work in public universities. In several instances, those bills are now moving toward some resolution, and so a series of posts checking in on where things stand seems in order.
First up is North Dakota. As I've noted before, North Dakota was considering very significant changes to the tenure system in the state universities. HB 1446 was sponsored by the House majority leader, and Republicans enjoy sizable majorities in both legislative chambers. Unsurprisingly, the bill sailed through the lower chamber. Amendments in the House cut some of the particularly egregious components of the original bill, but left in place the core commitment to gutting tenure. By the time the bill got the Senate it was being pitched as a pilot program that would only have an immediate effect on two campuses. I submitted testimony to the Senate critical of the bill, which left essentially unconstrained discretion in the hands of senior university officials to fire tenured members of the faculty. The bill was widely panned in submitted testimony to both the House and the Senate. The Senate Education Committee sent the bill to the Senate floor with the recommendation that it be passed into law, though it stripped the language about it being a pilot program in an apparent effort to reassure the other campuses that they would be spared from the reform.
HB 1446 failed to pass the Senate in a 21-23 vote on March 31. A motion to reconsider failed by a vote of 23-24. The"Tenure with Responsibilities Act" is dead for now, but there is clearly plenty of support in the legislature for severely weakening tenure and faculty governance.
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
Good news.
GOP can be so useless.
RINOs.
Although a lot of them honestly don't know how bad things are on college campi today.
North Dakota is probably like Maine, much of the legislature consists of retired folk who went to college in the '70s when things were still somewhat sane (particularly in the state schools, which did *not* have riots) and they've been invited to a few alumni events since then over the years and given quite halcyon perspectives of what the university is like now.
They haven't had police officers radioing in "officer in trouble" calls like I have -- they haven't seen how bad things really have become.
Like, there was a lot of litter and they needed you to come pick it up?
Human garbage...
State schools didn't have riots? An example of the saying if you remember the 60s and 70s you really weren't there.
Democracy in action, Bob from Ohio.
Representatives are just delegates of voters. The minority who voted against reform were acting on behalf of special interests, read the article that discusses all the opponents, its the education establishment, not a single regular citizen.
A very non-conservative thing to say.
How so?
Fellow named Burke addressed this some time back.
Maybe not a very Burkean thing to say, then. Burke died a while back, didn't he? I think conservatism has moved on since.
"Conservatism has moved on" = "a very non-conservative thing to say."
Burke is really interesting, Brett. He was part of a movement nowadays called the anti-enlightenment.
Basically, don't think of a utopia and move towards it, think if where you are and consider that there are reasons why you are where you are before you try and change things.
I guess it turns out that not every Republican thinks that the whole point of getting elected is to pwn the libs.
I'm a tenured professor in another state, but still think this should have passed. What are out of state opponents of this afraid of? I don't actually think they are worried it will hurt the state universities in North Dakota. Instead, I think they are most worried that it WON'T, in which case it could spread. If they actually thought this would be a disaster for North Dakotans, they would welcome it so the disaster would serve as a warning to other state legislatures.
EXACTLY!!!!
I don't see why faculty, at least at a public university, should have *any* governance rights -- particularly when they are also unionized.
In a law partnership, the partners have governance rights, but their personal fortunes are also on the line, and if the firm goes under, aren't the partners personally liable for the firm's debts?
If a university goes under -- and a lot will in the near future -- the faculty can walk away with their pensions and investments intact and while they might not find a job somewhere else in a time of declining enrollments and institutional failure, they aren't personally responsible for their mistakes.
If the University of North Dakota makes some expensive mistakes which the taxpayers must bail them out of, will the professors reimburse the taxpayers? Can the taxpayers vote them out of office?
Of course not -- so why should they have this authority without accountability?
Gosh, one would hope that a tenured professor in any field would have the ability to step back and look at the larger picture.
Have you noticed that (I'll just throw out a few made-up examples, to illustrate), when Texas proposes very pro-abortion laws, Mississippi and West Virginia are opposed...they don't say, "Great idea. Texas will suffer as a result of this pro-choice law and the future long-term result will be fewer abortions nationwide." Or when California proposes a super-gun-friendly law, New York and Washington don't say, "Wonderful. This will be a failure in Calif, and this will, later, push stronger gun control nationwide."
You do get that this is not how govt actually works, right? (As a thought experiment, maybe you're right . . . maybe we really should use the 50 states as laboratories, and allow for a wide variety of state-specific laws controlling our daily lives, so that we can objectively analyze the results and make sober judgments about what laws should be applied to the entire country and which ones should be shelved. But since we don't live in fantasy land . . . .)
p.s. The fact that Ed is strongly supporting you is a huge hint that you are probably on the wrong side of [fill in the blank]. (Exception: non-political or ideological things like food, books, movies, where his contributions and suggestions tend to be interesting and worthwhile)
I am looking at the larger picture. Having some data on what happens when a state eliminates tenure would be a good thing for everyone, unless of course you are certain that no data is needed because the answer is already known.
Memory is that somebody -- memory is Middlebury College in Vermont but I probably am wrong -- eliminated tenure 10-15 years ago and went to 5 year contracts instead. I don't have a fast enough internet connection here to really find anything, although if you have access to Nexis, it likely would help.
Then there is Unity College in Unity, Maine. Unity college was created by civic-minded businessmen when I-95 bypassed the town, going through swampland 20-30 miles to the west -- and the local chicken industry was dying. (As late as the '80s, Unity College dorms were old chicken barns reduced from three to two stories.)
Last I heard, and I *think* this was in Downeast Magazine, which any competent interlibrary loan librarian can find for you, the new president (screaming racism) had either abolished tenure and/or fired most of the tenured faculty and gone to on-line for most/all of the courses. This was a couple of years ago and even if I could remember, I likely would be wrong and hence I am not going to speculate.
And then there is Vermont School of Law -- and this:
https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/15/vermont-law-school-revokes-tenure-75-percent-faculty/
My experience is that Vermont Digger is a reliable Vermont newspaper but -- again -- none of this may be true. I'm tired of being accused of lying...
Good luck...
Step 1: stop lying.
You haven't noticed all the conservatives trying to ban abortion nationwide, or prevent blue states from passing meaningful gun control? The idea that conservatives stand for states rights only applies when states are enacting conservative policies.
States rights, (Really states powers, are expressly denied in the case of any right to violate constitutional rights. So why shouldn't we try to prevent states from passing 'meaningful gun control', or any other sort of law whose purpose is infringing a civil liberty?
You could ask the victims of any of the recent mass shootings, except they're dead so they probably wouldn't respond.
I don't disagree with you that gun owners have rights, but other people have rights too, and sometimes when rights are in conflict, compromises have to be made.
It's not just that gun owners have rights. It's that people have the right to be gun owners.
The problem here is that you're not treating this like other rights. Normally, exercise of a right can only be restricted when the exercise ACTUALLY harms someone. Essentially, while your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, that right can't be restricted on the basis that fist swinging might hypothetically lead to nose bashing, you have to demonstrate that the fist is actually headed towards somebody's nose. The government can't ban martial arts training by claiming it would make people more effective muggers!
So, the fact that I might use my 1st amendment rights to defraud somebody, or commit extortion, doesn't imply that they can be limited in cases where I'm not doing that, it merely implies that fraud and extortion aren't protected even if committed by means of speech or publishing.
But that's not how you approach the 2nd amendment. Wrongfully shooting people is already illegal, and nobody claims such laws violate the 2nd amendment, so that's not what gun control concerns itself with.
Rather, gun control concerns itself with restricting non-harmful gun related activities, such as simple ownership, on the theory that doing so might reduce the incidence of actual crimes.
But that's not how rights work. You can't restrict exercise of a right on the theory that somebody might exercise it wrongfully. You have to demonstrate that they ARE exercising it wrongfully! You can't ban a color printer because it would be useful for counterfeiting currency. You can only ban the counterfeiting itself.
So, have at it: Ban wrongfully shooting people, all you like. No 2nd amendment activist will mind.
Brett, I have actual work I need to do today so I don’t have time to re-cover ground that we’ve already been over time and time again. You have an extremist view of the Second Amendment that wasn’t uniform even among extremists until fairly recently, and you currently have a majority on the Supreme Court. A lot of people are going to die as a result.
But back to my point: The fiction that conservatives support 50 state laboratories experimenting with what is, and is not, good policy is just that: a fiction. So is the idea that conservatives favor local control if the locals start to pass liberal policy. You’ve told us *why* you think conservatives should intervene, which essentially agrees with my argument that conservatives favor intervention when blue states make liberal policy.
You have trouble understanding that states only get to experiment with constitutionally permissible policies? The fact that a state might decide it would be interesting to try out violating a civil liberty, just to see if it works out, doesn't make that state a "laboratory of democracy".
It makes it a laboratory of tyranny.
Not everyone agrees with you that meaningful gun control is constitutionally impermissible, and please stop pretending otherwise. It's as if someone were to make the claim that "since all Christians believe in reincarnation . . ." Your view of the Second Amendment is not the only view of the Second Amendment. Until relatively recently it probably wasn't even the majority view.
Imagine a governor like DeStantis, who illegally threw out an elected official last year and is advocating against teaching subjects like African American history and who is in the midst of turning one of the most unique and liberal public universities in his state into "Hillsdale of the South," imagine him being able to fire any professor he didn't agree with. Because that's what laws like this will do; it's their primary intention.
More power to him....
“DeStantis, who illegally threw out an elected official last year”
Shawn if you were making the laws it would probably be illegal, but it’s legal under Florida law for the governor to remove local officials if the removal is ratified by the legislature.
The removal was ratified by the legislature then litigated in court, and the judge confirmed it was perfectly legal.
This is the second local official DeSantis has removed by this process. The first was Scott Israel, the Sheriff of Palm Beach county who’s deputies hid during the Parkland school shooting rather than doing their job.
It’s a shame you can’t tell the difference between what you disapprove of and what is illegal.
Um, a federal court ruled it was illegal; it simply ruled that it lacked the authority to do anything about it.
I assume Kazinski is not a lawyer (or paralegal), but I suppose he could be a South Texas College of Law Houston grad, or maybe a receptionist at a small, rural law firm.
"Imagine a governor like DeStantis, who ... is advocating against teaching subjects like African American history"
You have to imagine a governor like that, because the Governor DeSantis who exists in the real world isn't doing anything like that. Only the one in your imagination is trying to do that.
You’re a lying bigot, birther Brett Bellmore.
Well, this DeStantis guy seems terrible.
Fortunately, DeStantis does not exist.
However, a governor with a similar name in FL has not done this stuff you list, so he's all good.
"Bitter-Klinger" comment in-coming from the "Reverend" Jerry S, (12th son of the Llama) in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....
Yeah, that’s how the legislative process works. Some compromise law to take back some of the authority and power universities have misused will probably eventually pass.
Keith, tenure is not a suicide pact.
Because progressives have shown themselves incapable of governing a public university in a way that reflects the ideological diversity of the state, state intervention is required. ND profs--most of whom are not from the state--are not empowerd by the people to care for the state's academic institutions.
North Dakota? How does this God-for-saken State get anyone to live there? And I'm not talking Bitter/Klingers/Abortion/Guns, but Winters worse than Stalingrad 1943, Mosquitos the size of birds, Tornados, and biggest City?
"Fargo" nuff said,
In an 8 year span we moved from Ellsworth AFB SD, to Minot and Grand Forks AFBs in ND
Ellsworth was by far the best, if that tells you anything,
the last base, Barksdale in LA (Louisiana, not the other LA) was heaven in comparison, if that tells you anything,
and in the 70's they had B52's in, Florida! California! Washington! (State) even Georgia (not those B52's)
Oh, and when Dad wasn't flying over the Northern US/Canada, was flying over Veet'nam (after flying 2500 miles from Guam) So imagine driving an 18 Wheeler at 30,000 Feet for 5 hours, then you get to do the actual mission, and if you're lucky, get to fly 5 hours back,
He was one of the ones who "didn't get captured"
Frank
It might help in discussions of "tenure" to have some explanation of what it means. Yes, yes, I know, in general tenure it means it's harder to fire professors if they have it than if they don't. I went to a college (back in the Dark Ages) in which I assume that most of the senior Profs had "tenure", but presumably some of the junior faculty didn't. Apparently only one (1) professor in the entire University supported the Republican Presidential candidate. I don't know for sure, but I never heard that he was fired (and I don't know if he had tenure).
So if ND does away with "tenure", what does that mean in real practical terms to the current faculty, and -- more important -- to prospective new faculty?
Tenure has value as a work benefit, both from the perspective of job security but also for fewer political restrictions on academic inquiry. If ND neuters tenure and diminishes its value in attracting talented faculty, ND will get the instructors that value academic inquiry less and for whom job security is less important--maybe because they're having a hard time finding a permanent job and sick of adjunct work. ND could mitigate that issue by offering higher salaries in exchange for reduced job security and political interference and risk related to research, but they're unlikely to given the nature of state funding for education in general.
It's almost impossible to fire a professor with tenure.
That is not what I understand. Plenty of for-cause reasons in the tenure agreements. One of my good friends from law school just got tenure (yay!). We call every Wed.
Bad behavior, bad pedagogy, even shoddy paper production rates, all called out as causes for firing.
Anecdotal maybe, but more than your ipse dixit.
Professors tend to be properly educated, modern, reasoning people who reside in educated, successful communities. Who would expect them to be Republicans?
Both tenure and faculty governance were, are, and will always be moronic ideas.
I mean, yes, sure, it's entirely understandable why professors would like to wield unaccountable power over their places of employment; it simply has never made any sense at all for anyone else to go along with the nonsense. Administrations should be eager to be able to put big "Censured by the AAUP" logos on their websites, student handbooks, and the like, treating it as a promise that they exist to serve the interests of the people who pay for the institution (students, donors, governments), rather than members of a small self-selecting guild.
Of course, the problem is the usual one with public choice economics; the benefits of tenure and faculty government are concentrated, and the costs are diffuse.
It depends on the institution. If you want to be a research one university and attract the big donors and government grants while building a lucrative patent portfolio, the quality of your faculty matters.
Quality researchers in patentable areas, by and large, don't want to waste their own time engaging in faculty governance and don't need to be protected by tenure.
in other words, doing useful research.
I'm down to think about tenure, though I think that's hardly the biggest issue in education today.
But all the commenters here who seem broadly hostile to our current educational system probably shouldn't be at the table figuring out ow to optimize it.
I don't know, if you think everything's already peachy, your idea of optimization isn't going to involve much in the way of change.
And given the degree of inflation in tuition in the last half century, (To mention just one issue.) I can't help but think some really serious change is in order. Not just a few tweaks on the margins.
Further, I can see why tenured professors would be in favor of tenure; Who wouldn't like a sweet deal like that? But why would anybody else care about it? Literally nobody else gets that deal!
And now that university faculties are, instead of being mildly to the left of the general population, radically unrepresentative of the general population, and getting noisy about it, the basis for sympathy is shrinking fast.
I guess you think it’s bad enough that it’s time to kick over the table, and that’s not totally unreasonable.
But I do have to say that tenure, or for that matter anything having to do with faculty, has almost nothing to do with the spiraling costs. The biggest driver, just like medical costs, is third party payments.
After that, it’s too many ancillary activities, too many expensive compliance mandates (either real or used as an excuse), and finally the decision to give second chances and lots of academic support to people we either wouldn’t even have admitted or would have quickly weeded out a few generations back. It really is harder and more expensive to make someone with below average math and reading ability into an accountant or engineer.
You’ve excluded the middle.
You want to end public education. I don’t trust you to have an objective take on tenure reform.
Tuition inflation seems supply driven, not demand, no? Didn’t you mention loans as the problem. Now you’re going the other way. Without really looking at the actual cost of tenure, just assuming that’s the driver. You’ve made 2 unfounded assumptions already. You’re already rolling outcome oriented!
radically unrepresentative of the general population, and getting noisy about it, the basis for sympathy is shrinking fast. Yeah, see, this is why I don’t want your knee-jerk radicalism in the room discussing reform.
When has a university ever reflected the general population?! This is you making up a bullshit goalpost because you've got a partisan axe to grind.
You’re not just unthinkingly wrong, you're pretty boring.
No, I want to end government education, or at least make it just one option among many, so that nobody is actually forced to chose it.
A well fed populace is a worthy goal, and yet the government does not tax away all our grocery budgets, and run a system of soup kitchens only the wealthy can avoid by paying twice for their food. No, we have private provision of food, and the government merely helps those who can't afford it to buy from that private market.
I think education should be handled in the same manner: A private education market, and the government merely helping those who can't afford to purchase from that market with the cost. Vouchers, not government schools.
I believe the primary purpose of the government in running its own schools is not education, but indoctrination. This was explicit in the adoption of the Prussian system.
Naturally, if the government is going to run indoctrination camps, the content of that indoctrination is, unavoidably, going to be continually fought over. Disentangling government and education is the only way to end that war.
"When has a university ever reflected the general population?!"
It has never perfectly reflected the general population, but as recently as only 2-3 decades ago, it was much MORE representative of that population. In a nation split down the middle, many of our college faculty are ideological monocultures, not even representative of the left, but only the left fringe of the left.
This has been extensively documented in these pages, over the last few decades one academic field after another has gone from merely favoring the left, to total dominance by the left. There are whole institutions now with not one Republican on their faculty.
It's inevitable that if academia becomes totally dominated by one party, the other party will stop being sympathetic to it. You don't have to like that to recognize that it's true. The universities can not be the sole property of the left, and expect to be supported by the right.
You continue to prove why I don't think you're the one to talk about tenure reform - your goals are not the goals of someone examining this one policy but those of a radical willing to mess with whatever to get to your market-based utopia.
It's also incredibly telling that you take all the other demographic ways universities have differed from the main population - class, race, background, cultural preferences...and ignore all of them in favor of partisan leanings.
That's not what I think about; it's not what most people think about regarding what constitutes reflecting the general population.
I'm someone who likes the idea of engagement and outreach to conservatives on campus, but you aren't here for that; you're here because no one wants to play with your radical politics, and you want to make it so we have to play with you.
"your goals are not the goals of someone examining this one policy but those of a radical willing to mess with whatever to get to your market-based utopia."
It's a fair cop. Yes, I'm a radical who wants to put an end to the government's system of indoctrination camps.
The system of higher education in this country is massively screwed up; Both in terms of hyper-politicization of faculty, and the cost of securing an education. Both trends are unsustainable. I think radical reforms are in order.
However, while I think that, and eliminating tenure is a radical reform, I don't think it's well thought out; As Ducksalad remarks below, the likely result of eliminating tenure under today's conditions is just enabling a faster purge of conservatives from the faculty.
My position on tenure is actually that you can't expect a general population subject to at will employment to be that support of of this wonderful deal that academics get, and you particularly can't expect it when the political gulf between faculty and the general population has grown so wide.
This position goes to whether or not it's sensible to expect the public to support tenure, not whether or not tenure itself is a good idea.
You're very far from being on campus, plus you have a vision for America, including it's policies regarding public goods, well outside of the mainstream. Add to that your propesnity to believe bad faith in those you disagree with, and you would not make a very good policymaker.
So not going to engage much with you on tenure; you're not an honest broker for a number of reasons.
Our population has gotten more partisan, but the notion that there is a political gulf between academics and the rest of the population any wider than the cultural gulf that has been there since the middle ages comes from being too online.
The right's populism has turned anti-academic and anti-intellectual, but that call is itself lead by the well educated intellectual class. If you spent a moment on campus you would see it's not really changed in the past decade. But you are not one to really test your priors with reality.
My position on tenure is I don't know. But I'm also reluctant to favor much change at the moment, given the right is more reactionary than thoughtful on the issue, to the point of passing censorious laws. Gotta deal with the storm outside before you think about whether your hallway could use repainting.
I have no idea about public support for tenure, and I think that's rather removed from the questions here. That's what happens when you partisanize an issue.
"Our population has gotten more partisan, but the notion that there is a political gulf between academics and the rest of the population any wider than the cultural gulf that has been there since the middle ages comes from being too online. "
No, it comes from actually looking at the surveys of party affiliation in academia. Which you prefer to ignore.
"I have no idea about public support for tenure, and I think that’s rather removed from the questions here."
We're talking about a potential democratically enacted law removing tenure from professors at public universities. It's hard to get closer to the issue of public support than public laws.
That survey is not responsive to my comparative point. But you can’t see that because you’re blinded by your big dumb narrative.
Public support is well removed from these policy moves. They’re red meat for the GOP party faithful. If you check the polls, Thye GOP moves on abortion, on controlling books and syllabi, on expelling Democrats, those moves are quite unpopular.
But the Presidential primaries are coming up. And gerrymandering is a thing. And the GOP in general has gotten really caught up in explaining away their losses and doubling down.
So if you want to argue popularity, I'm not going to care much.
Of all the dopes, morons, and malcontents here that have no seat at that table, Brett has the most no seat at that table.
Brett Bellmore is culture war debris, awaiting housekeeping.
Nice ad-hom. Got anything of any substance?
If you think tenure is a bad thing in itself, go ahead.
However, if the problem you are addressing is progressive capture of higher education, please consider the stories we’ve all read about here and other places. Was the chief villain of the story an administrator or a regular faculty? Plenty of both of course, but I think the worst cases, where rights were violated (as opposed to merely worthless stuff being taught in some class) involved administrators.
If the article description is correct, the point of the bill is to further empower administrators at the expense of regular faculty. Unless the elimination of tenure is coupled with some realistic plan to…. um, address the problem administrators, you might actually make things worse.
Hard to comment without knowing the particulars of the bill.
It abolishes tenure, but only for those who don't have it yet. If you've already got it, you get to keep it.
College used to mean something.*
Now its pointless, atrociouly expensive, and caters to the fashionable mob.
If state “universities” were interested in education, they would push high schools to graduate competent students. Instead, in MD, over half of freshmen have to take remedial english, or math, or both (guess what counties are the worst?).
All tenured professors fantasize they are the next Einstein. Meanwhile 70% of peer reviewed research cant even be replicated. Professors should be tenured solely based on whether their research can be replicated. Yes, i know, that leaves a lot of departments in the cold. And?
State universities need a big shake up. While im not a fan of North Dakota's approach, anything that gets the hammers smashing is a good start.
*to be fair, a Yale education never meant anything except your parents were rich.
Salary rates for college vs. non college beg to differ. SOMEONE thinks a degree means something.
And your take on the replication crisis is utterly shit.
Googling your phrase, I found this on a study *specifically about medical papers*
"A survey by Nature discovered that more than 70% of respondents had failed to reproduce the results of at least one other study"
Not 70% of papers, even limited to medical research.
Maybe you should go get a degree in statistics. Or reading.
Salary differences are for those who went to college in thew 1970s, not now.
Utterly wrong, Ed.
"The earnings gap between college graduates and those with less education continues to widen. In 2021, median income for recent graduates reached $52,000 a year for bachelor’s degree holders aged 22–27. For high school graduates the same age, median earnings are $30,000 a year."
https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings/
...yet those same high school grads, who make far less money, are expected by the Left to fund the termination of student loans of people who make, per your stats, dramatically more money than they do?
Not quite the 70s: Salary differences are skew by STEM degrees. If you have a degree in engineering, it was worth it.
I doubt law firm partners -- most of whom were not on-the-spectrum STEMmers -- regret their educational choices.
Plus, when they watch CNN or read the Washington Post, they understand what is being discussed, and when they enter a bar or ride a subway, normal people don't move away from them.
On statistics: learn about skew. Salary differences are skewed due to STEM and finance/accounting degrees. If you have one of those, college may have been worth it. But not if you have a degree in art history or English Lit.
And: oh the irony, I DO have a grad degree in statistics lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Even in medicine, failure to reproduce results is a big problem (and generally those are supported by the gold standard double blind studies).
You want to go for STEMLord bullshit, then don't say 'College used to mean something.'
You've changed your thesis.
I know all about the replication crisis - I work in science policy - and I know your numbers on it are bunk.
"Even in medicine?" My dude, *that's where most of the crisis is!!*
STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 entities ranked)
ACT SCORES
North Dakota 41
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE
North Dakota 32
ADVANCED DEGREE
North Dakota 49
NUMBER OF STRONG SCHOOLS
North Dakota n/a
REPUBLICAN REGISTRATION
North Dakota 3
I really don’t understand why conservatives want to abolish tenure. Conservative professors are the professors who will get fired if tenure is abolished. Do you seriously think a university would fire professors for expousing liberal views? About 85% of professors are liberal-of course a university couldn’t do that.
It seems like liberals should be the ones calling you abolish tenure in order to fire the few conservative professors.