• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Tenure Is Important at Community Colleges, Too

June 15, 2011, 11:32 am

As an advocate for two-year colleges and a member of the American Association of University Professors, I’ve been following the recent debate over tenure on these pages with great interest. No one has brought up community colleges yet, but I think it’s time to make them part of the discussion.

Some might argue that tenure isn’t necessary for faculty members at community colleges, because we aren’t generally involved in research. For that matter, many two-year colleges across the country (including some entire state systems) don’t even offer tenure, and others have recently tried to abolish it.

Obviously, many administrators and lawmakers are among those who don’t believe that tenure is important at two-year colleges. I disagree. I believe it is just as important for us as it is for faculty members at research-oriented universities, for a couple of reasons.

The first is collective. The principle that the faculty should have oversight of the curriculum and other academic matters is widely accepted (or at least paid lip-service to) throughout academe. It is just as true at community colleges, where faculty members, even if they’re not heavily engaged in research, are still the content experts and still have primary responsibility for making sure that what is taught meets students’ needs and is in their best interests academically.

That means faculty members must be free to speak out in department meetings, curriculum-committee meetings, general faculty meetings, and faculty senates. In doing so, we may well disagree with powerful administrators who have different priorities — enrollment growth, cost savings, personal advancement, political gamesmanship. At such times, the academic integrity of the institution depends largely on the collective willingness of faculty members to stand up for what they believe is right — and the only two things that can protect them when they do so are tenure and the goodwill of powerful administrators.

Personally, I know which of those two I would prefer to put my faith in.

The second reason that tenure is vital at two-year colleges has to do with the individual. In the classroom, every faculty member must be free to teach in the way that he or she believes is most effective. Within guidelines established by the faculty as a whole, we each must feel free to cover the topics and issues that seem relevant to us — without interference or censorship from the administration or the government. That is just as true at community colleges as at four-year colleges.

Moreover, sometimes individual faculty members must be willing to adopt, on principle, unpopular points of view or to question prevailing orthodoxies, whether in internal discussions or in public forums. And once again, tenure is the only thing that really protects faculty members who take such risks. But when the day comes that no individual faculty member is willing to speak out for fear of losing his or her job, then academic freedom has ceased to exist for all of us, whatever our institutional type.

I know that to some extent I’ve been preaching to the choir here, and that much of what I’ve said applies equally to four-year colleges. But it’s especially important that we advocate for tenure and academic freedom at two-year colleges, because that is the sector of American higher education where those concepts are currently most vulnerable.

I would like to see my colleagues at two-year colleges — who sometimes, quite frankly, tend to be a little complacent if not oblivious about these matters — become more engaged in the national debate. Tenure and academic freedom are under attack in many states, and we as community-college faculty members need to become more vigorous in the defense of those principles, by whatever means available. The future of our profession may depend on it.

This entry was posted in The Two-Year Track. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • drj50

    There are many well-documented problems with for-profit institutions of higher education — as well as (different problems) with private and public non-profit institutions. But “Next: anecdotes about administrators and then about students.”? Good data, not anecdotes, lead to good policy.

  • 11274135

    It’s interesting how defenders of the malfeasance of some in the for profit sector prpose as their defense that the “non-profits do it too.” And that makes it right?

    Tell you what. Let’s imagine the world without Pell grants. How many for profits would disappear?

  • drassessment

    And somehow we need to find a way to ensure those same protections for adjunct faculty in both 2- and 4-year institutions, but especially in community colleges where they make up the larger percentage of teaching faculty. Many adjuncts need the paychecks (pitiful as most of them are) to survive and thus have an even greater reason to not “rock the boat” lest they find themselves without any courses to teach. They receive few, if any, benefits and have no possibility of receiving tenure. Yet they make a tremendous contribution to the academic world. What can be done to protect them when they feel the need, on principle, to take an unpopular stand against prevailing viewpoints?

  • stevesarakuhn

    Thank you, Mr. Jenkins, for your clear argument for tenure in community colleges.  As one of two community college professors who were banished to a very small, remote site because we insisted on faculty control over curriculum (in our case, it was a private sector company who was invited in and was using materials and methods that were at best, unproven, and at worst, proven to be bad), I can attest to the importance of tenure.  I know that we would have been fired  if we had not had this protection.  As it was, we were mistreated for a couple of years until our lawsuit was settled, and then we were returned to the main campus with some additional benefits.  In my experience, faculty members at community colleges tend to be passive about speaking out under the best of circumstances, though they will state quite cogent arguments and possible solutions to each other privately about problems facing the institution.  Even with the collective voice of a Faculty Senate (my colleague and I were secretary and president of the Senate the year immediately prior to our punishment), faculty members rarely speak out, and, if they do, it is anonymously.  Without tenure and its protections, the community college can become a fiefdom of the president.

  • wilkenslibrary

    I was disappointed that Rob Jenkins did not cite the AAUP’s position on granting tenure to contingent faculty in this article, so I am pleased that drassessment brought up the need for job security among the 75% of community college faculty who are not tenured or, currently, tenurable.  Our position is, as our Mexican colleagues put it, much more precarious even than that of full-timers.  Since our students’ learning conditions depend on the working conditions of their teachers, we must insure that those working conditions are excellent.  Contingent faculty need a pathway to full-time employment and a system that guarantees them the right to speak out on all college-related issues.

    Betsy Smith/Adjunct Professor of ESL/Cape Cod Community College

  • robjenkins

    Honestly, Betsy, I had thought of adjuncts and their plight as a separate issue; but from what you and drassessment have said, I see that it’s not as separate as I thought. A case of unconscious parochialism on my part, no doubt. Mea culpa. Thanks to you both, though, for addressing the issue more eloquently than I could.

    Rob

  • wilkenslibrary

    Dear Rob,

    It’s a separate but closely related issue.  Or maybe intertwined is a better description.  Thank you for being open to considering it as such.  The AAUP has come out for tenure for contingent faculty, and I’m hopeful that before I’m ready to retire, we’ll see the Vancouver model in effect on many, if not all, of our campuses since it will benefit not only part-timers, but also full-timers, and, most of all, students.

    In solidarity,
    Betsy 

  • polisciguy

    I teach politics part-time and my students cannot pin down my personal beliefs because I really do argue as many sides of an issue as I can. When I eventually achieve F/T status at a community college, tenure will be vital to the way I do my job. In addition to having collective control regarding issues such as curriculum delivery methods, I all too often have to present ideas that are controversial to some or even a majority of people in order that I fairly represent the broad spectrum of opinions in the public arena. If that freedom is sacrificed because I feel the need to bow at the altar of playing it safe, then I have done a disservice to my students and my discipline.

  • nampman

    Amen!

  • neudy

     
    I certainly see your side, and those who left comments concerning the matter as well.  Yet, your argument is so one sided and skewed. I know you have good reason to be one-sided in your argument, but you’ll never accomplish your goal by failing to ignore the opposing side’s concerns for granting tenure to begin with.   

    Tenure, in its current form, is something all professors relish.   But why? So you can tell administration to shove it whenever you like, with the argument of academic freedom as the shield? Or, by refusing to do things you don’t like nor care to do when asked, because you can use tenure as a sword?  Do you advance the same “free speech” opportunity you relish to your students by using anonymous grading? Probably not, and I’m sure they too would love to oppose your views from time-to-time but feel as if they can’t without receiving a bad grade.  

    You are asking administration to grant tenure to a collective group on a large scale basis; thus, redistributing power to those who, afterwards, will have the least amount of risk to oversee.  It’s the administration’s butt that is at risk no matter how much power they have.  They report to the board, and they are responsible for meeting the overall needs of the institution. If they do not have the ability to accomplish that mission because of such restrictive items like tenure, then they will fail and be terminated.  Thus, their long term future could become tarnished and they could be forced to uproot their family to wherever they can find gainful employment. 
      
    Do you see where this story is going?  Administration shares the same fear you have but with a different group in mind. Thus, if you want to receive something as great as tenure, then bring something to the table to give in return.  Just showing up and teaching is not enough to warrant tenure. You have to help quell any such fear administration has, or you need to redefine the term tenure to meet both party’s needs.  Otherwise, the only thing that will happen is – you’ll continue writing articles that advocate tenure for everyone, but never receive it. 

    Best of luck in your quest.

  • drassessment

    Isn’t it amazing what fear can do?

    BTW, I have never allowed a student’s position either in agreement with my viewpoint or in opposition to it affect that’s student’s grade. I have played the “devil’s advocate” to prevent groupthink too many times to allow myself to penalize a student for disagreeing with me.

  • softshellcrab

    I don’t see the fear point.   I see so much abuse of tenure at my school, that I have come (as a fully tenured faculty member) to disagree with it, or ask what modified approach can protect faculty from being let go for controversial ideas, such as conservative right-wing ones like mine, but allow them to be let go for being lazy.  I can’t tell you how lazy and good-for-nothing half of the tenured faculty in my department are.   Heck, I wish they had the gumption to express some controversial thought I disagreed with, it would show they had some life in them.  I would respect them more.  We have a bunch of highly paid tenured faculty working 10-15 hours a week, and not working at all over most of the Summer or over a one-month Christmas break.   The tenure thing is so abused.  And why protect faculty in a way that no other workers are protected?  I am just turned off by the whole thing and the ridiculous abuse I see.

  • Prof_truthteller

    softshellcrab, you have harped on abuse of tenure at your institution many times. Here are some ideas for you to consider:

    1) Lazy faculty- is it possible that you are not seeing completely and without resentment or bias what work they actually are doing? Have you followed them all day or week? Consider that everyone thinks they are working harder than anyone else. That’s just human nature. I know quite a few senior faculty who are mellow and happy, but I don’t leap to the assumption that they are lazy and unproductive.

    2) Abuse of tenure is not an argument for elimination of it. Abuses can be corrected, and if you have tenure, then you shouldn’t fear reporting the abuse, if it really is abuse and not just your perception. If you do fear reporting the abuse, maybe you are able to understand the “fear point” your claim being unable to see.

    3) “Highly paid” is subjective, I doubt if anyone thinks of themselves as such, and its seems these “lazy and unproductive” faculty must be getting paid similar to yourself, or at least on the same or similar pay schedule, so if they are highly paid, so are you. Not working over summer or Christmas is not required in most contracts in academe, so I don’t know how you can fault people for not working when they are not employed or not under contract to do work.

    4) You might want to re-examine your assumptions and your perspective of your personal situation. If there is a serious abuse of tenure at your college, it is frankly and flatly, not your problem, it’s a problem for the Dean or Vice President or President and/or Human Resources. In any job, with or without tenure, people can be fired for being lazy and unproductive. Your assumption that it’s not being done, assumes that these administrators are also lazy and unproductive, since they are not doing their job of controlling waste of human resources and abuse of privilege of tenure.

  • Prof_truthteller

    neudy, your comments are really confusing, and I am totally missing your point(s). You say, consider the oppposing viewpoints. Ok, I’m ready to do that. What are they? You don’t list them.

    You say, tenure is something professors relish. “Relish” to me means a pleasurable, sensual enjoyment. I doubt if professors “relish” tenure. For me, it is an honor that carries with it a burden of responsibility and a privilege that allows me to really BE a professor in the literal sense.

    Administrators do not “grant tenure to a collective group on a large scale basis,” nor is the article asking for this. Most public community colleges already have a systme for granting tenure to their faculty. The problem the author describes is a trend toward TAKING TENURE AWAY from faculty. He provides some reasons why keeping tenure is beneficial.

    Personally, I am sympathetic to the fears of administrators, who do not have the protection of tenure. However, those fears are not sufficient grounds for doing away with tenure for faculty, or for creating a system of tenure for administrators.

    When you state ‘just showing up and teaching’ as not enough, you display your ignorance of what faculty really do, what their role is in the college, and what they are responsible for. Any faculty who ‘just shows up and teaches’ will NOT get tenure at my college. Maybe they’ll reapply at yours- or at softshellcrab’s.

    Your demand that faculty bring something exceptional “to the table” in exchange for tenure, such as helping to quell administrator’s fears, is completely mystifying so I can’t really respond in a reasonable way, but you seem to be confusing some personal insecurities with general policy issues.

  • neudy

    Ah, thank your Highness prof_truthteller for putting me in my place. I greatly needed that. What was I thinking?  Please sir may I have another…Additionally, I’m sorry you hold such a burden from that word they call Tenure. I’m willing to bet you can relinquish such burden if you like.
     
    Now, let me point to a few things you brought forth.  You said, “Most public community colleges already have a system for granting tenure to their faculty. The problem the author describes is a trend toward TAKING TENURE AWAY from faculty. He provides some reasons why keeping tenure is beneficial.” However, you sir, never referred to who was “taking tenure away?”  If it is not the faculty, then the only other group in this two party equation is administration. 
     
    Therefore, to connect the dots on our illustration, we can draw a line from point “A” to point “B” and get the following, (since tenure is being taken away from faculty by administration, and since faculty argues for maintaining tenure because of the reasons mentioned aforesaid; then, one must understand the reasons for taking away Tenure).  So, my point is – find out why administration is denying, or taking away tenure, then find a way to quell that party’s fear.  And, just maybe, your Highness, you’ll see an amicable solution to meeting both party’s needs.   
    I’m sorry I wasn’t clear in my statement earlier.  It was directed towards the author; but, since you wanted to put your two cents worth into it, and act like a spoiled child in the process, I’ll see your two cents and raise you two more.

  • robjenkins

    Your dichotomy is false, neudy. Mostly, it’s politicians–state legislators–who are trying to take away tenure in some states. You might want to read the earlier column I alluded to above, “Tenure and the Two-Year College.”

    Rob

  • Prof_truthteller

    Here is the link to Rob’s article that he cites below; http://chronicle.com/article/Tenurethe-Two-Year/44474/ took me awhile to find it so I offer it here for everybody.

    neudy, thanks for clarifying your main point for me. However, even if we replace “administrators” with “legislators” as the body capable of implementing the change we are discussing- removal of tenure from CC faculty- I am not sure that your suggestion would help, and here’s why.

    The legislators who are seeking to remove tenure from community college faculty are for the most part Republicans and conservatives. I personally do not think that their reasons are based on any fears. In fact, it’s not clear to me WHAT their reasons are- however, if you look at the overall scope of the Republican party’s actions, one unifying trend that seems quite clear is how those actions serve to undercut traditional Democratic and liberal power bases and funding. Organized labor is clearly one of their targets. Academe is another. Removing tenure kills both birds with one stone.

    The CCs are an easy target and starting point, partly because of the apathy of CC faculty towards tenure that Rob describes, but I have no doubt the campaign against tenure will spread to four year and doctoral institutions.

    Unfortunately, in our public arena of political discourse, my fear is that we have moved far beyond any hope for an “amicable solution to meeting both party’s needs” mostly due to the ideological intransigence of the right and far right, and this issue is just one small piece of that hugely threatening national problem.

  • kgodwin

    At my institution, as at most institutions, most of our FTES are taught by adjunct faculty.  This causes much uproar, as it does most places.  But in a lot of ways, those in “administration” have our hands tied to change this.  

    When we hire a tenure-track position, we are essentially hiring someone for life.  That mean that, come what will, we have to pay that person.  According to our collectively-bargained contract, in order to lay off one tenured faculty member, we have to first lay off ALL adjuncts.  Not most, not some, but ALL.  Imagine, if you will, what a college would look like with NO adjuncts.  Like it or not, it would be a weaker college, as, especially in the career/technical fields, at least some of our adjuncts are hired for the right reasons – they bring a special, practical skill from the real world to the classroom, and they’re willing to share it with our students.  

    This requirement – that we lay off all part-time/temporary workers before touching so-called “permanent” employees – is unique to faculty.  We can lay off classified folks like myself without eliminating all part-time/temporary classified positions.  We can lay off our administrative folks without eliminating all part-time/temporary administrative positions.  Hey – our administrative folks here are on annual contracts, and we don’t even have to give a reason for failing to renew them each year…unlike our adjunct faculty here, for whom we must show cause if we don’t re-hire them.  

    So as we see our state funds dwindle, we’re somehow supposed to make a “permanent” commitment to our faculty by granting them tenure, but manage to pay for it out of “one-time” money…our “other” revenue streams, which we can’t count on being there.  Even though many of us would like to hire more “permanent” faculty, when the FTES drop, as they will when the economy turns around, and we don’t have the other revenue streams to pay for the tenured faculty member, we won’t be able to lay them off.

    As far as I can see, creating tenured positions when you don’t have permanent funds to cover the expenses just isn’t fiscally responsible.  Especially when you can’t lay those folks off if you no longer have the money to pay their salaries…  And moving all of the non-faculty positions onto one-time funding won’t work, either, as faculty cannot run a college by themselves (although one or two of our profs seem to think they’d like to try, I think they’d find that they have great difficulty registering our students for classes and/or dealing with their financial aid paperwork).  

    I certainly understand the desire to keep tenure.  And I do see benefit to tenure.  I just question whether or not the cost of tenure is worth the benefit…  

    Finally, I will admit to being a bit resentful of the “need to feel safe to disagree with administration” justification.  I’m in institutional research, and there are certainly times when I’ve had to go out on a limb and challenge powerful administrators who were misusing data about controversial subjects, or present findings administrators didn’t want to hear (like that there’s no evidence supporting that someone’s pet project is actually helping students).  And I’ve certainly had to worry about my job due to disagreements.  Why shouldn’t I be granted “tenure” of some sort to protect me from retribution?  It would be good for the institution, after all, to have a research staff that was in a position to tell it like it is, rather than have an IR staff that feels the need to manipulate the data to show what administration wants it to show.  

    Would those of you who support tenure for faculty support tenure for classified and/or lower-level administrators so that they, too, can feel free to disagree with their supervisors?  And so that they, too, can feel free to “adopt…unpopular points of view?”  These concerns are not unique to faculty, so why should faculty be the only ones who are protected?

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037