Tenure is...
A guarantee of due process for faculty in support of academic freedom in the classroom and in research. In other words, if I challenge students in class to consider ideas that differ from those upheld by my college administration, I am protected by my tenure regarding my use of academic freedom to encourage students to think critically and ask questions.
Tenure is not...
A guarantee of forever employment, nor is it a way to protect bad teachers from losing their jobs. It does not allow me to behave inappropriately towards students or colleagues.
In my own words, tenure does not make me "furniture" at my institution. Rather, it makes me the kind of teacher who is permitted to inspire my students to think, to question, and to act within their system of values. Tenure has made me a good teacher, and my annual performance reviews confirm this fact.
Now, if you are going to write to your state representative, don't tell them what tenure means to ME. Tell them what it means to you. Some discussion points you may want to consider are listed here, but please feel free to use your own. Try to keep them focused on what ending tenure would mean to the students and to learning - not what it means to you personally. Besides, you are a good teacher and your job is not in jeopardy, right? But your students' learning is.
- Tenure was created to protect academic freedom and the right, no - the obligation of faculty to inspire students to think critically and ask important questions. It is critical that faculty teach students to do these things. We are educating tomorrow's future citizens.
- Tenure is what allows faculty to innovate. Asking questions and trying new things has led to countless developments in the industry of education. Without it, innovation will suffer.
- Think of a controversial topic you've discussed in class that may have been at odds with someone in your supervisory path. Without tenure, you may not have felt able to share ideas with students and inspire them to think. Share this story in your letter.
- Teaching at a community college is a calling for many people. But many of the best community college teachers are actively recruited by universities hoping to boost the performance of their lower-division students. A good percentage of these instructor positions carry tenure. Does it make sense to not entice the most talented teachers to stay at the institutions where they can be of service to the students who need them the most?
It has been suggested to me that it might be helpful to develop a "canned communication" to share with folks who may not have the time and inclination to write their own letter but would be happy to forward something on. I'd love to do this, but I need some help. Please contact me if you are willing to help out with this! Thanks.
2 comments:
Thanks for your blog and for reiterating the central ideas regarding tenure. What worries me about this bill, though, is not the legislators who don't understand and can be reasoned with, but those who either don't understand and will not listen or those who clearly have a different agenda. The bill's sponsor, Rep Fresen showed in his presentation of the bill several troubling things:
1. That he doesn't understand community college staffing. He seems to be under the idea that adjuncts are hired because tenured profs take up positions in obsolete fields that ought to be used by new fulltime profs in the correct fields. He thinks that a prof in a program which has been eliminated must be kept on staff if he/she has tenure. He believes college presidents are "handcuffed" in their staffing choices. This has never been the case at St. Petersburg College and I imagine not at Valencia.
2. He refused to say with whom he had discussed the ideas which led to the bill, suggesting that some outside influence has created this bill. He did mention that he had talked to college presidents but Bill Law testified that the college presidents had not had a chance to review the bill.
3. He seems to have the same misunderstandings about the purpose of tenure as you lay out in your posting above.
What is more troubling than potential ignorance here is that of an agenda whose members are not listening at all and whose votes are not subject to being swayed by facts and reason. Rep. Bullard questioned the bill eloquently, as did at least two of his colleagues. Republicans on the committee offered almost no questions at all for this brand new bill, no questions which might have fleshed out the differences in testimony given. It is clear that republican members of this committee entered the meeting already knowing how they would vote. It is also clear that the bill was introduced so quickly that none of the stakeholders had a chance to give input or comment on it.
The result? Someone's trying to slip this past the process and pass it in a climate they feel is favorable. While we certainly need to try to contact and influence our reps and senators,I worry that many of them are no longer listening and that our influence must take place in other venues. I don't know what the best venues might be or how best to use our energies and resources. Since this bill will require that college presidents eliminate tenure, it will take away their freedom to offer it and also move power of the boards of trustees to Tallahassee. I would hope the presidents would side with us on this issue (our previous pres at SPC would not have but I think most others would).
Greg Byrd, St. Petersburg College
Greg, thank you so much for your very eloquent comment. I'm sure your thoughts will help others formulate their letters to representatives. I'm working today to put together a core group of faculty at Valencia to collaborate on a white paper aimed at explaining the benefits of tenure to students. I am going to ponder the value of doing the same with faculty from multiple institutions. I'm also collecting a list of media outlets that we can contact.
Post a Comment