Tenure process lowers universities’ education standards

  Mitra Ebadolahi Ebadolahi is a
third-year international development studies and history student
who believes that the forces of good will kiss evil on the lips.
She encourages comments at [email protected].

Click Here for more articles by Mitra Ebadolahi

It is a haunting, elusive entity. Some professors spend entire
careers seeking it, attempting at every moment to prove that their
teaching and research are worthy. It is the academic Holy Grail. In
everyday terms, it’s called tenure.

Over the course of the past decade, the tenure process has come
under increasing scrutiny nationwide. Although originally developed
to protect academic freedom, the tenure process in 2001 leaves much
to be desired and currently threatens the most qualified professors
with unwarranted termination. Recently, the denial of tenure to
popular geography professor Joshua Muldavin has reignited this
debate here at UCLA.

In 1940, a joint committee representing the American Association
of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges
set forth new guidelines for academic freedom and tenure. Since
then, this document has directed the tenure process at universities
throughout the United States. The preamble reads: “Tenure is
a means to certain ends; specifically: freedom of teaching and
research and extramural activities, and a sufficient degree of
economic security to make (teaching) attractive to men and women of
ability. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of
truth.”

At first glance, most would agree with these noble objectives.
When tenure initially became popular, American professors did not
have any institutionalized protection for their academic freedom,
and could be dismissed for pursuing “unconventional”
research topics or teaching students theories which were outside of
accepted beliefs. Essentially, tenure was an administrative
response to insecurities within academia so that professors could
teach and research without inhibition.

Sixty years later, the tenure system is faltering. Instead of
promoting the best possible research and placing an equal emphasis
on outstanding teaching, today’s tenure is rooted in a simple
and intellectually destructive reality: publish or perish. This is
largely due to the fact that universities, especially public
research institutions like the UC system, depend on high academic
visibility in order to attract grant funding and coveted research
projects, which in turn build institutional prestige and generate
further revenue. As a result, university lecturers nationwide are
forced to compromise teaching in order to prioritize research and
publishing.

Illustration by RACHEL REILICH/Daily Bruin

Recent studies indicate that the disproportionate emphasis on
tenure has tremendously impacted faculty members at institutions of
higher education. Researchers William Massy and Andrea Wilger of
Stanford University interviewed nearly 400 faculty members from 19
different universities and found that “nearly every faculty
member interviewed (94 percent) finds tenure and promotion to be an
important goal. Overall, the importance of research-based
activities overshadows factors related to teaching, such as working
with students (and) curricular freedom.”

The quest for tenure has also resulted in a disproportionate
emphasis on quantity, not quality, of academic research; thus, many
university professors are neither teaching well nor producing
cutting-edge work. Yet as long as they are published in prestigious
journals bringing academic glory to their reputation-sensitive and
grant-hungry institutions, these professors are certain that they
will be awarded the highest recognition available to them:
tenure.

It is critical to understand tenure in the context of our larger
society. The United States, as the self-proclaimed model of
“capitalist democracy,” promotes efficiency,
individualism and competition as chief mechanisms for sustaining a
maximum profit, minimum input economic system. This system pervades
all elements of our society, including education, which provides an
institutionalized outlet for reinforcing such values and
perpetuating the status quo.

One result of the tenure process, therefore, is to increase
individual competitiveness among faculty, who then transmit similar
psychological attitudes toward education and learning to us, the
students. Instead of teaching students to help one another and
challenge each other in positive ways, the example set by faculty,
who have been indoctrinated in a competition-based model of
“knowledge,” is to promote the further fragmentation of
our educational system.

Our professors play a critical role both in our development as
students and as members of a larger society. The argument that
teachers are powerless to influence their students outside of a
particular course is absurd. A phenomenal professor can inspire
students to pursue knowledge and think critically long after the
end of a term.

Moreover, excellence in teaching can dramatically impact
students’ lifelong aspirations. I know of countless students
who have been moved to change their majors or even careers by
outstanding faculty. Contrary to what may be a popular belief,
university students are still highly impressionable; after all, we
can hardly expect to “know” everything by the time we
are 19 or 20. Thus, a profound learning experience, guided by a
capable, dedicated professor, can radically alter our conceptions
of the world around us.

Sadly, it seems that we have ceased to hold these high
standards. Instead of seeking professors who offer a true pedagogic
challenge, many students opt for “easy” courses taught
by faculty who may be less concerned with teaching and more
involved in research. The competitive atmosphere fostered by our
present education system has only reinforced this distressing
trend.

To make matters worse, the tenure process is far from
democratic. According to UCLA guidelines, a lecturer may apply for
tenure after seven years of university-level teaching. Though the
professor’s resumes and publications are passed through a
long line of academics and committees, the final decision is always
made by the office of the Chancellor. Nowhere in the process are
student opinions solicited.

Given that the original AAUP guidelines stressed teaching as
much as research, and that students are the best qualified to gauge
a professor’s ability to teach, it is unacceptable that we
are completely removed from the tenure process. Although university
fund-raisers and corporate sponsors may want to overlook students,
the fact remains that the fundamental purpose of any institution of
higher learning is to teach. Therefore, students must hold top
priority if UCLA wishes to live up to its responsibilities and
reputation for excellence in teaching.

If the lofty goals of tenure are to be restored, the processes
leading to it must be democratized and the requisites broadened to
place a greater emphasis on teaching. Ideally, tenure should
reflect quality of work rather than adhere to a hyper-competitive
model that may only damage the ability of both students and faculty
to learn. Furthermore, if some of the best professors are denied
tenure without any public explanation, something is definitely
amiss.

As an academic community, UCLA must modernize and legitimize its
tenure process. An immediate step toward this reality would be the
formation of a joint student-faculty review committee to review and
modify the tenure process to ensure that student input is formally
required. If we are successful, we may set a national example and
guarantee an exceptional educational experience for all Bruins.