Institutions of learning have to consider practical matters as well as ideological ones. When someone’s speech results in pitched ballles among student groups, that is something the administration has to take into account, whereas ideologues need not bother.

I would think mediation, rather than litigation, would be a far more sensible approach.

On a personal note, I react badly to tje high-fevered
tone of FIRE’s news releases and website. It’s an effort to get past the feeling I’m being recruited to storm barricades in order to get to the meat of what they have to say.

Tenure and speech codes clearly should be addressed in non partisan terms, but they seldom are. I watched a panel of conservative women on C-Span tackle the topic and was quite impressed by their arguments – until they offered solutons. They were, in essence, proposing replacing what they perceived to be institutinal biases with another set of, IMO rather extreme) biases of their own. The underlying theme was that patrotism, (defined how?) should be a primary consideration in evaluating teacher performance (amd awardomg temire) and choice of class texts.

When the topic of bias is introduced into a any discussion, problems immediately arise because of the difficulty in distinguishing between perceived bias actual bias and bias that translates into punitive or repressive measures.

It’s not a straightforward, easy problem to understand, much less solve.

One topic on the whole liberal vs conservative bias question is where exactly such a bias shows up and if certain research has inherent bias. By and large, my experience (and this is at three institutions — the ‘quite liberal but easy going’ Carleton College (where David S is), the ‘liberal compared to Mississippi but conservative compared to the nation’ U of Mississippi, and the U of Hawaii, which I cannot easily label) is that in almost every other class, such as languages, sciences, and music, very little political content ever comes up at all. Not a single time. Every once in a while a Bush joke would pop up, for example, but that’s pretty much it. Lots of things could be debated here.

What is most interesting to me is whether or not certain departments have inherent political biases. My mother is a retired finance prof. Most profs in a business school, from my experience not stats, come across as conservative. On the other hand, a lot of the department profs which get conservatives all excited are involved in various ethnic or regional studies. Is “women’s studies” or “African-American studies” inherently liberal? You would like to assume that it is not and that one could study these areas from many political perspectives, but in a nation in which 80-90% of African-Americans vote Democratic, one wonders if it is possible to be passionately involved in critical issues for this group and not come off as somewhat liberal. Or if you spend your life studying he history of Native Americans, it’s going to be hard to not notice our nation didn’t handle those relations with the greatest of honor. If you do see this, do you now “hate America”?

So now let’s combine such ideas with different types of universities. At a place such as Ole Miss, about a third of majors are business majors. This is a legitimate role for a U like Ole Miss. Are we then building a “conservative” bias in simply by having such a focus? On the other hand, is a liberal arts college like Carleton going to wind up inevitably somewhat “liberal” simply due to the fact that liberal arts colleges often focus on things like history, political science, women’s studies, etc.? And if that’s the case, the only way to completely shut down a certain bias is to shut down worthwhile areas of study.

These are open questions to me. Just thinking out loud.

Then there’s the issue of all the international scholars who study and teach in the U.S. I am a former Asian Studies major, and what is conservative to someone from Japan or Hong Kong might be labeled liberal here. An instance for me is from the early 90s when a Louisiana home owner shot a visiting Asian student due to “miscommunication,” let’s call it. In one of the very rare times a contemporary issue ever came up in history class, my Hong Kong prof just found it unfathomable (he was livid) that the U.S. lets people own guns such that this can happen. This idea is classified as a liberal issue in America, but is downright conservative and traditional in his original home. So was I as an unsuspecting student just indoctrinated into American liberalism with his comment or East Asian conservatism?

But, of course, almost none of this has anything to do with tenure.

The FIRE web site is a good comprehensive source for speech-related issues on campuses all around the country.

Really, this is an issue where I think “liberals” and “conservatives” on campus should find common ground. The original “free speech movement” at Berkeley was very “liberal” yet “conservatives” are the target now. If both are true to their own supposed values, they will both value free speech even when it is “offensive”.

Arguably, however, this was only because of the extreme negative publicity the protest garnered Columbia that something had to be done…analogous to Duke U desperately avoiding discussion of the support of the “Group of 88″ academics for the potbangers who carried huge banners advocating the “castration” of the Duke lacrosse players.

In a sense, liberalism on campus is analogous to “systemic discrimination” – it pervades all aspects of academic life so that, unless one somehow is discriminated against (i.e., is conservative) one does not perceive its operation.

For example, guest speakers on university campuses in support of the Palestinean cause freely and openly lecture. However, guest speakers in support of Israel or critical of the Arab side are often forced to cancel as the university cannot ensure the “security” of the events.

Are you speaking of Carleton in Montreal, Canada? I think they had one such notorious event a few years back when Netanyahu was blocked from speaking as a result of rioting Palestinian supporters.

In the recent notorious case of some young Republicans inviting Minutemen to speak at Columbia, left-wing groups forced their way on the stage and shut down the event…in the full view of Columbia U security. Columbia responded to this by limiting public access to future conservative sponsored events.

Jason: You’re right, I should have included Minnesota on the list. I’m a big fan of the U, and I think its highly underrated. Go Golden Gophers!

Also, I know for a fact you can find right-wing speech codes at a variety of Christian colleges and universities. My impression was that the biggest abuses of the speech codes occurred in the early 90s, and its somewhat dropped off the map since then. I can only generalize from Carleton, which is a pretty mellow place, but we haven’t had any cases I’ve seen where our harassment policies have been used against academic speech.

But at least in those areas there is the possibility of removing folks who are crazier than a bag full of ferrets. In academe profs have to be absolute raging nutters to be canned.

“What liberal bias?” I believe such questions are analogous to the famously myopic comment by Pauline Kael who was mystified by Nixon’s election victory: “No one I know voted for him.” In a landscape dominated by liberals, and defined largely by liberal ideology, there is no sense of liberalism per se for it is everywhere…truly “hegemonic” in a Gramsci sense.

Conservatives in academe, however, are only too aware of it. Indeed, even moderate liberals are scorched by it (Google K.C. Johnson – a Clinton Democrat – to read of a bizarre story of liberalism run amok on campus that left even the NYT appalled.)

That’s a pretty good mix of “top” universities (Michigan, Brandeis, Notre Dame, Lehigh)

…and Minnesota. The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is definitely a peer to Michigan or Notre Dame.

To respond to the post itself, I would agree that tenure should be protected against the attempt to subject it to the political override of a legislature, but I would also point out that the threat from “conservatives” is hardly the only threat to academic freedom or even the most widespread one. The number of campus speech codes written to privilege left-leaning viewpoints alone overwhelms the number of instances of “conservatives” trying to wipe out tenure or put any other limits on academic freedom. And several studies contrasting how “conservatives”, “liberals” and “leftists” are treated in promotion and tenure decisions demonstrate a consistent skew against those perceived (often wrongly) as “conservative”. The university IS skewed to the “left”, that is just straight up fact. Denying it is pointless. But it IS reasonable to question what the actual impacts of that skew are, because some of the “conservative” attacks like this one on tenure are based in a serious misunderstanding of how the “left” skew in academia actually expresses itself. The problem is not abuse of power, it is “group-think”. The real danger is not from punishing “conservative” students, it is from foreclosing important lines of research and criticism and thus producing frankly shoddy scholarship that succeeds not by merit, but rather by pandering to current intellectual fads.

Let me say that as a grad student and instructor in political science (the most likely field to be politicized for obvious reason) I’ve worked with professors ranging from “center-right” to far, FAR “left” and that that vast majority of those professors from all political ideologies feel themselves bound by powerful professional ethical norms that would prohibit harassment or disparate treatment towards students based on ideology. It is instructive to note that the majority of free speech violations on campuses indeed are from the “left” (outside of a very few private religious colleges, I am aware of ZERO speech codes that privilege “right-wing” expression but there are many that privilege “left-wing” expression, including at some very large and prestigious public universities), but they are almost all carried out by other students and/or college administrators, and only quite rarely by professors.

It is also important to note that this is NOT a partisan issue. One of the leading free speech advocates who was instrumental in tearing down the original speech code at Wisconsin-Madison and who co-founded the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education was and is a “liberal” Democrat. Most of my associates who share my deep interest in free speech on campus are also Democrats.

Bottom line, though: As a long-time advocate against speech codes who agrees with concerns about the growing “leftward” tilt in academia, I agree that legislation is the WRONG way to address those concerns. The RIGHT way is greater attention within academia itself towards professional obligations that favor free inquiry and respect for differences of viewpoint and opinion. Professional norms can solve the problem while legal politicization will only exacerbate it.

Getting rid of tenure might also have one chilling effect. Losing our excellent profs to schools outside the US, do we really want our best and brightest leaving?

I connected university status with tenure because many others were connecting it. The argument is that any university that did not have tenure would slide down the university pecking order and thus be a worse investment for the students to attend.

Universities have a tremendous effect on students. The probability that anyone who attends Texas State-San Marcos will ever be admitted to a top 14 law school or to graduate school at any Ivy League is extremely small. For all of the NY Times and Washingot Post writing about the great times that students (meaning elite, white students at private schools or the best public high schools) have in choosing which universities that they will attend. Most American High School students have to settle on a university that they instinctively know is going to provide not only an inferior product but just the name on the diploma will act as a handicap.

One of the reasons that many in the middle class feel apprehenisve is that they know that most college degrees provide very little benefit.

The best example I would say is that George Mason University which is the largest university in Virginia is a school of almost 40K students who all wish that they were somewhere else.

I think that the credential-obsessiveness of American academia is a problem (I think there are plenty of very bright people attending weather vane state schools for a variety of reasons, and they should be able to start their careers on equal footing to the rest of us), but that’s a separate argument from tenure I think. If anything, America’s academic problem is that we’re awash in riches.

First, having attend and taught at several universities and colleges (private and public)… What liberal bias? How do politics end up in the classroom other then when students have questions about such stuff once or twice a year maybe at most? Sorry, I have simply not run into it as an issue over a very long period of time. Nor has anyone else I am aware of. Not to say it does not happen, I am just one guy. But it has to be pretty rare.

Second, Tenure serves as part of the package to recruit good talent. I mean I already take a 40% pay cut versus the private sector (comp sci). And sure the benefits are a bit better while working, and a lot better when retired, but seriously 40% does not cover that. So all the universities drop tenure? A lot of good (sci and engineering) talent just looks at things again and more than a few say, ‘Fine, buh-bye I am heading to the private sector’. Leaving those very professors you worry about cutting being the ones left teachng.

I doubt long term conracts or tenure makes a dang versus how well a prof teaches. Research yes. But I mean really its not like any U or college I was at really cared that much if students disliked a prof. And there were always several (tenured or otherwise) who did not teach well. Hey news flash, I consulted for 12 years and I can say ther are more than plenty of the same sort in the private sector. Deal baby. Its part of the process of learning about real life. Its full of incompetents too.

I am not saying its not an issue that deserves to be addressed, or made better, but that I sincerely doubt lack of tenure will address a minimally existant political issues, and certianly don’t see how it will help teaching issues.

I add that at a state university level abolsihign tenure woudl be very bad to attractcing new talent where we need it – sciences and so on. I mean I already take a about a 40% or so pay cut just staying in acadamia. Now admittedly benefits are better, but no THAT much better.

Re whether the US has the best university system or not: hard to tell. Certainly it has more of the top world universities, almost all of them if you remove the top UK universities. On the other hand it also has a huge number of mediocre or worse universities. A good comparison could be made with healthcare; the US has some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world, but no first world country has more people with little or no care at all.

If you measure the best system as the one that has the highest level available, the US probably could win out, but if you made it about the largest number of deserving students getting a chance at a good education I wouldn’t know. In Spain for instance, no university can begin to compete with the level of the top US university, but on the other hand the difference is smaller between universities. I went to the best one in the country, but, though it makes a difference, it doesn’t mean I hold a insurmountable advantage over someone who went to a more average university. Also true is that virtually no Spanish student is deep in debt after college.

What is better? I actually don’t know. I think I like the Spanish system in that more students can access higher education and do so in such a way that assures you a fighting chance almost no matter which school you go to. On the other hand, it being virtually free lends less seriousness to the affair and encourages people who don’t have as much drive. In the US, the cost of college education probably keeps away a bunch of people not meant for it. The US also has the best schools in the world and undoubtedly that has something to do with the huge funds available to them.

University faculties, however, remain pretty much absolutely liberal, and tenure is regarded by many liberal academics as a critical component of maintaining this power base.

That the academic deadwood is mostly liberal today is accidental, I think. Before the 1970s it would have been mostly conservative deadwood.
I mean, seriously: outside of the Supreme Court, there is no other institution in our society that insures lifetime job security.

I think long term contracts would be the best thing for academe. Many conservatives seek to end tenure to destroy the last liberal power base, and many liberals absolutely defend it for the reverse reason. I don’t think either have the interests of academe or students at heart.