Brief Update on Texan Tenure
Update (May 8): Some tentative good news! It looks like there’s now a compromise bill in the House that would preserve tenure, insisting only on the sort of post-tenure review that UT (like most universities) already has.
Update (May 9): Alas, it looks like the revised bill is not much better. See this thread from Keith Whittington of the Academic Freedom Alliance.
I blogged a few weeks ago about SB 18, a bill that would end tenure at Texas public universities, including UT Austin and Texas A&M. The bad news is that SB 18 passed the Texas Senate. The good news is that I’m told—I don’t know how reliably—that it has little chance of passing the House.
But it’s going to be discussed in the House tomorrow. Any Texas residents reading this can, and are strongly urged, to submit brief comments here. Please note that the deadline is tomorrow (Monday) morning.
I just submitted the comment below. Obviously, among the arguments that I genuinely believe, I made only those that I expect might have some purchase on a Texas Republican.
I’m a professor of computer science at UT Austin, specializing in quantum computing. I am however writing this statement strictly in my capacity as a private citizen and Texas resident, not in my professional capacity.
Like the supporters of SB 18, I too see leftist ideological indoctrination on college campuses as a serious problem. It’s something that I and many other moderates and classical liberals in academia have been pushing back on for years.
But my purpose in this comment is to explain why eliminating tenure at UT Austin and Texas A&M is NOT the solution — indeed, it would be the equivalent of treating a tumor by murdering the patient.
I’ve seen firsthand how already, just the *threat* that SB 18 might pass has seriously hampered our ability to recruit the best scientists and engineers to become faculty at UT Austin. If this bill were actually to pass, I expect that the impact on our recruiting would be total and catastrophic. It would effectively mean the end of UT Austin as one of the top public universities in the country. Hundreds of scientists who were lured to Texas by UT’s excellence, including me and my wife, would start looking for jobs elsewhere — even those whose own tenure was “grandfathered in.” They’d leave en masse for California and Massachusetts and anywhere else they could continue the lives they’d planned.
The reality is this: the sorts of scientists and engineers we’re talking about could typically make vastly higher incomes, in the high six figures or even seven figures, by working in private industry or forming their own startups. Yet they choose to accept much lower salaries to spend their careers in academia. Why? Because of the promise of a certain way of life: one where they can speak freely as scholars and individuals without worrying about how it will affect their employment. Tenure is a central part of that promise. Remove it, and the value proposition collapses.
In some sense, the state of Texas (like nearly every other state) actually gets a bargain through tenure. It couldn’t possibly afford to retain top-caliber scientists and engineers — working on medical breakthroughs, revolutionary advances in AI, and all the other stuff — if it DIDN’T offer tenure.
For this reason, I hope that even conservatives in the Texas House will see that we have a common interest here, in ensuring SB 18 never even makes it out of committee — for the sake of the future of innovation in Texas. I’m open to other possible responses to the problem of political indoctrination on campus.
Follow
Comment #1 May 7th, 2023 at 8:00 pm
Strategic appeasement — What could go wrong? …
Comment #2 May 7th, 2023 at 10:47 pm
I totally agree with you, Scott. This bill is a travesty.
That said, it’s also clear that there are some substantial problems with tenure more generally. Our own university has a significant number of senior professors in their late 70s and older who are totally unproductive, can’t teach, can’t advise students anymore, aren’t capable of administrative tasks, and yet who draw huge salaries because they refuse to retire.
This is also damaging science. It means significantly fewer opportunities for young people with fresh ideas to get jobs. It’s part of why the job market in academia is so terrible. It’s part of why we’re now seeing such a high percentage of university faculty in contingent/non-tenure-track positions.
Before the 1980s, mandatory retirement mitigated this problem, but that’s gone now. In even earlier eras, professors rarely lived beyond their 70s. Tenure needs to be updated to accommodate these realities, but in a way that offers the protections and recruitment incentives needed to bring in the best scholars.
Most people get tenure at around age 40. Don’t you think things would be much improved if permanent tenure were replaced with 30-year contracts that had all the protections of tenure except that they had a 30-year cap? There could be 5-year renewals after the cap for the very small number of professors who are still productive, but the rest would then naturally move to emeritus status, with reduced salaries. Time-capped contracts are perfectly legal.
Comment #3 May 8th, 2023 at 12:38 am
@Jon Awbrey, only that it’s not “strategic appeasement”. Me and many other scientists are truely disturbed by far left ideological indoctrination. Is that so hard to comprehend? Indoctrination and ideological bullying and extortion have no place in academia, and anywhere else.
Comment #4 May 8th, 2023 at 1:11 am
For what it’s worth:
“Well howdy y’all, I’m a professor of computer science at UT Austin, specializin’ in quantum computin’. Now, don’t y’all go thinkin’ I’m writin’ this statement in my professional capacity, ’cause I’m just a private citizen and a proud Texas resident.
Now, I reckon that like the supporters of SB 18, I too see leftist ideological indoctrination on college campuses as a serious problem. It’s somethin’ that I and many other moderates and classical liberals in academia have been pushin’ back on for years.
But let me tell ya, eliminatin’ tenure at UT Austin and Texas A&M is NOT the solution, not by a long shot. It would be like treatin’ a tumor by murderin’ the patient, plain and simple.
I’ve seen firsthand how just the threat of SB 18 might pass has seriously hampered our ability to recruit the best scientists and engineers to become faculty at UT Austin. And if this bill were to actually pass, I reckon it’d be the end of UT Austin as one of the top public universities in the country. Heck, hundreds of scientists who were lured to Texas by UT’s excellence, includin’ me and my wife, would start lookin’ for jobs elsewhere, even those whose own tenure was “grandfathered in.” They’d leave en masse for California and Massachusetts and anywhere else they could continue the lives they’d planned.
The reality is this: the sorts of scientists and engineers we’re talkin’ about could typically make vastly higher incomes, in the high six figures or even seven figures, by workin’ in private industry or formin’ their own startups. Yet they choose to accept much lower salaries to spend their careers in academia. Why, you might ask? Because of the promise of a certain way of life: one where they can speak freely as scholars and individuals without worryin’ about how it will affect their employment. Tenure is a central part of that promise. Remove it, and the value proposition collapses.
In some sense, the state of Texas (like nearly every other state) actually gets a bargain through tenure. It couldn’t possibly afford to retain top-caliber scientists and engineers, workin’ on medical breakthroughs, revolutionary advances in AI, and all the other stuff, if it DIDN’T offer tenure.
So I sure hope that even conservatives in the Texas House will see that we have a common interest here, in ensurin’ SB 18 never even makes it out of committee — for the sake of the future of innovation in Texas. And shoot, I’m open to other possible responses to the problem of political indoctrination on campus.”
Comment #5 May 8th, 2023 at 9:20 am
Harvey Schultz, I would gladly replace my tenure (obtained at 40) for a 30y long short term contract starting at my hiring date. Except we call that « tenure ».
Comment #6 May 8th, 2023 at 11:17 am
Another point that might appeal to conservative legislators:
Tenure protects contrarian viewpoints, and there’s no question conservative viewpoints are contrarian in academia.
Comment #7 May 8th, 2023 at 3:09 pm
Most of the leftist ideology I see complaints about strikes me as actual history, actual biology, and other actualities. Such as the farmer I saw interviewed on some program, complaining about the teaching of evolution. “I don’t want my son hearing that stuff! They’re going to tell him we came from green slime! I didn’t come from slime!”
As a farmer with farm animals, I would have thought he knew that he did come from slime. Not green slime, though, more beige.
(Granted, there are always jerks. Amanda Marcotte has been known to act as a jerk. Obviously I’m not defending her, but I don’t see that as leftist or rightist, just jerkist.)
Comment #8 May 8th, 2023 at 7:26 pm
The amended version is not much better. See this thread from the founding chair of the Academic Freedom Alliance:
https://twitter.com/kewhittington/status/1655346773303480326?t=A8qaW0a1O979zepM2FV6oA&s=19
Comment #9 May 9th, 2023 at 9:27 pm
It’s kind of amusing that due to alleged concerns that tenure is too easily abused, their solution was to create a way of dismissing tenured faculty that is also easily abused. One grounds for dismissal is “violated laws or university system or institution policies substantially related to the performance of the faculty member’s duties”. This can mean just about any infraction of university regulations.
Comment #10 May 10th, 2023 at 7:32 am
Ilio #5: Why do you call that tenure? Do you have a contract that expires 30 years after your hiring date? Do they make you retire at that point? Few faculty I know ever retire anymore. They stay on through their 80s, at least, without going emeritus.
Comment #11 May 10th, 2023 at 12:36 pm
@Jon Awbrey #1:
The state legislature has hard power over Texas higher education, including the UT System. This entire adventure is essentially a petty and spiteful exercise by Creighton and the Lt. Governor to humble the universities in response to the perceived arrogance and defiance of the UT Senate and DDCE office. They waved red at the bull and got the horns.
SB18 will only die in committee if at least one of the six Republican committee members decide that the costs of the bill outweigh the benefits. I testified about how tenure protects conservative voices in academia—not because this is the strongest objective argument for tenure, but because it’s an argument with some chance of being compelling to conservative lawmakers and their constituents.
Scott’s arguments—that (1) SB18 would irreparably harm the reputation and competitiveness of institutions that the legislature has invested in for decades; and that (2) there are alternative oversight mechanisms already in place for addressing the legislature’s concerns about DEI on campus—are practical and effective.
Strident liberal talking points in defense of tenure might feel good to deliver and get clap emojis on Twitter, but are not helpful to the practical goal of persuading the legislators that hold all of the cards here.
Comment #12 May 10th, 2023 at 5:03 pm
Harvey Schultz #20: Because that’s what it is, whatever the local rules stipulate that the old professors must be paid by their pension fund to do nothing or 30% more to do something.
Comment #13 May 11th, 2023 at 8:30 am
“Yet they choose to accept much lower salaries to spend their careers in academia.”
I’m a bit confused by this argument since it seems common for tenured professors to take a sabbatical to go work for a year or two in the private business or spin their own startup and self-appoint CEO (using their phd students as cheap workforce), all while maintaining their job security in academia as a cushy backup.
Basically having their cake and eating it too, haha.
Comment #14 May 11th, 2023 at 9:28 am
fred #13: The existence of those sabbaticals supports the argument. It underscores just how much more money many STEM faculty could make if they went full-time into the private sector, and therefore the pay cut they’ve accepted to spend most of their lives as tenured academics.
Comment #15 May 11th, 2023 at 10:01 am
Scott #14
There’s always a trade off between job security and salary. I was just pointing out that, in practice, many professors find ways around this limitation anyway.
But my understanding is that tenure is more about guarantee of free speech than competition with the private sector… because universities are making more than enough money from the current outrageous levels of student tuition fees to offer *very* competitive salaries if tenure was no longer a thing, of course they’d rather use that money to play the stock market (maybe I’m being confused about the differences between public and private universities, I don’t know what the rules are)… But that wouldn’t come with free speech protection.
Comment #16 May 11th, 2023 at 10:33 am
Fred #15: tenure also protects research that may have no immediate marketability (e.g.basic science). This is just as important as the free speech issue.
Comment #17 May 11th, 2023 at 8:25 pm
>tenure also protects research that may have no immediate marketability
Like deep learning from the eighties up to 2006.
Comment #18 May 11th, 2023 at 8:36 pm
fred #15: There’s no contradiction between your point and mine! The story goes: top STEM professors accept much lower salaries than they could make in private industry, in order to enjoy a certain way of life, and a central part of that way of life is tenure and its protections for free speech. For a century or so, this has been the deal that society has made with academic scientists, to acquire their talents for the public benefit at “well below market rate.” When society revokes tenure, it effectively reneges on the deal.
I’m not claiming that the scientists come out like saints in this story, just explaining the economic logic in a way that conservatives (of all people) would hopefully understand!
Comment #19 May 11th, 2023 at 9:02 pm
I agree that the new version of SB18 is not much better. It is particularly troublesome that it includes vague causes for firing a professor, such as displaying “unprofessional conduct”. A Department Head, for example, could deem that a professor displayed unprofessional conduct by ignoring calls to a faculty meeting. Or a Dean could claim that a vote of no confidence by the faculty due to their own performance would constitute unprofessional behavior. Moreover, it codifies tenure as property equal to a year of salary. This establishes a ceiling to what a university would have to pay a professor who is unfairly dismissed and successfully sues the university for wrongful termination.
I agree with Scott that just the possibility of SB18 becoming law has had a chilling effect on our ability to hire faculty and administrators. A colleague of mine reports of a collapsed recruitment of a two superstar package (husband and wife) due to the news about SB18 early this spring. There are also high profile searches at the Dean level that have not moved much, in part due to rather sparse candidate pools. We are trying to bring the best people from outside to raise our profile even more. Yet, the way things are going, we will be worrying about losing the stellar faculty we currently have. Under these conditions, retention packages would necessarily become much more expensive than they would be otherwise, and our best faculty will begin to be recruited from west/east coast universities.
I am sure that there are many universities that are looking at SB18 as an opportunity to recruit top Texas-based talent.
Even if SB18 doesn’t pass, it has already done too much damage to our reputation. This will have a very visible effect on the outlook of the state in the medium-long terms.
Comment #20 May 11th, 2023 at 9:17 pm
fred #15: I do not think that Universities would be able to afford to pay their top faculty market or above market salaries. Even if they could, most of those faculties would simply move to another top university that would offer tenure. In my own personal case, I enjoy the intellectual freedom afforded to be because I have Tenure at a Texas public university. Most importantly, while neither of the bills would affect MY tenure, they would make it impossible for us to recruit the top young faculty that we need to keep our department, college, university at the forefront of science, engineering and the humanities. Our department without the young superstars would be a very sad place. Even with my own tenure untouched, I wouldn’t want to be in such a limited place. Despite the fact that I am really happy at my university, I would very likely look to move to a place where Tenure is valued, regardless of whatever salary I would be offered, so I wouldn’t leave. There are things more valuable than money.
Comment #21 June 4th, 2023 at 1:57 pm
Is tenure now protected in Texas? https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/27/texas-university-faculty-tenure-ban-fails/