Hat tip to Gratton for drawing attention to Mark Taylor’s New York Times piece on abolishing tenure. Apparently Taylor, a philosopher of religion, believes that universities and colleges should be run like corporations and that we should fire older professors because they’ve been around too long and are therefore too expensive. As Taylor writes:
Tenure is financially unsustainable and intellectually indefensible. The fundamental problem is liquidity – both financial and intellectual.
If you take the current average salary of an associate professor and assume this tenured faculty member remains an associate professor for five years and then becomes a full professor for 30 years, the total cost of salary and benefits alone is $12,198,578 at a private institution and $9,992,888 at a public institution. To fund these expenses would require a current endowment of $3,959,743 and $3,524,426 respectively and $28,721,197 and $23,583,423 at the end of the person’s career. Tenure decisions render illiquid a significant percentage of endowments at the precise moment more flexibility is required.
If I’m following Taylor’s calculations correctly, he’s saying that professors at private schools receive a yearly average salary and set of benefits of $406,619 and that public school professors annually receive salaries and benefits amounting to $333,096. Who knew academia was so lucrative!
I really have no dog in this fight as I neither have tenure nor the opportunity to get tenure. I work on contract and can have my position terminated at any time without any reason even having to be provided. I work in what is known as a “Right to Work State“, which is basically Orwell speak for a set of laws that cede all power to employers and that prevent employees, under threat of law, from organizing or going on strike. This is what some conservatives call “freedom”. After all, it’s the employers money right? Therefore the employer should be able to fire you at any time and for any reason. And, after all, the employee can always find work elsewhere so she’s free. Ah how I love the American concept of freedom. Never mind that the employers enjoy disproportionate power, access, and representation within our government due to their money and that they also benefit disproportionately from the various services our government provides in the form of infrastructure, law enforcement, and military. Remember, those employers are self-made Randian super-heroes that have never relied on anyone else to get where they are. Like the moment of creation when God brought the universe into existence from the void, these self-made capitalists did not benefit in any way from family connections, excellent school, stable and flourishing living environments, or greater governmental access.
Nope, they’re self-made damn it! Therefore they are entitled to everything they’ve made and are having their freedom violated by having limitations placed on when and how they can terminate positions, whether they should pay more in taxes, whether they should provide benefits, stable pensions, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and let’s not forget that for every five dollars that employer pays out to any employee they get a return with profit. The capitalist might argue that they put up the money for the implements used to produce their goods and so therefore they’re justified in skimming surplus-value off the top of the workers production of value. However, isn’t there a point at which the worker creates enough surplus-value or profit to pay for that equipment? And didn’t Locke– a hero of liberal conservative economists –say something about property being formed or coming into existence as a result of human labor giving form to matter? Hmmmm? Hmmmm? I sense an inconsistency here.
But I digress. The outcome of Taylor’s proposal is pretty predictable. As in all other cases where the business model is adopted, you get declining wages, unreliable pensions, and tremendous job insecurity. Indeed, if we follow Taylor’s proposals we can look forward to a future where the halls of institutions of higher learning are populated with adjunct professors living in terror of whether or not they’ll be called back the next semester and trying to make due on a pittance of a wage. Nice.
July 22, 2010 at 1:47 am
You’re obviously a good philosopher, and I would guess that being so productive while teaching 5/5 means you are probably a pretty decent teacher. Are you applying for better (more tenure-track) positions? It’s a shame to see you stuck in that state (and State).
July 22, 2010 at 2:52 am
Not to mention the further reduction of higher education to the form of a commodity, and potentially if the current tuition/student loan model continues, the gateway to indentured servitude.
July 22, 2010 at 3:14 am
I like how the NYT calls him the “chairman of the department of religion.”
July 22, 2010 at 3:57 am
On that freedom thing. Henri Lacordaire’s quote is apt: “Entre le fort et le faible, entre le riche et le pauvre, entre le maître et le serviteur, c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit.” (A crappy attempt at translation: Between the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, it’s liberty that oppresses, and the law that frees). Assuming the law is not a mere legal figleaf for the machinations of capital, but that’s another story…
July 22, 2010 at 5:34 am
Mark C Taylor is 65. I’d have more respect for his argument if he was proposing something that would affect him rather than suggesting altering a system he has been taking advantage of for decades.
Your own situation sounds vile. I realise that the exigencies of family life, etc. mean that it isn’t always possible to keep to the ethical high ground, but there is an argument for refusing to take work under such conditions. Here’s hoping you mange to get out of there as soon as possible.
July 22, 2010 at 5:46 am
[…] on Taylor He runs with my post on Mark C. Taylor’s critique of tenure here.Also, he’s got his TOC for his Democracy of Objects book. And yes, that’s open for […]
July 22, 2010 at 6:55 am
[…] 22, 2010 From THIS POST BY LEVI you can get to Mark Taylor’s piece on why tenure should be […]
July 22, 2010 at 10:05 am
It’s a sorry sight, I have bad feeling that this is exactly how the system in the UK is going to end up as well…
July 22, 2010 at 1:11 pm
The New York system must be going through a cutting cycle. Every time this happens this TOTAL CANARD is bruited about the ether. Taylor’s liquidity argument is good evidence for exactly why tenure is valuable: to protect us from TOTAL IDIOTS such as himself…
July 22, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Anonymous notes: “It’s a sorry sight, I have bad feeling that this is exactly how the system in the UK is going to end up as well…”
The UK situation is pretty bad, as you perhaps know. There is no equivalent of tenure here. There are contracts, albeit increasingly short term, and there are unions. However, there is nothing quite so secure here as tenure in the US (although nothing like the competitive demands of the tenure-track either). In many respects I think the UK is ahead of the US on the neo-liberal, commodification of HE. But its not a competition I want us or anybody to win.
July 22, 2010 at 5:58 pm
The liquidity argument doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I have seen quite a few cases where tenure results in basically dead weight taking up space that could go to currently-excluded researchers. In the sciences and especially computer science, tenure is often actually very pro-business rather than the reverse. Some tenured faculty basically stop doing research or being involved in academic life, and use their tenured position as a sinecure from which to launch a consulting or entrepreneurial career. They spend 90% of their time on their businesses, 10% doing the bare minimum to fulfill their obligations (show up and teach a class now and then), and their colleagues are powerless to do anything about it.
July 22, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Mark, I tend to agree with what you said.
Using my Sociology department as an example, there are a few ‘senior lectures’ (that means they earn £50,000 a year) that essentially, if you excuse my language, do F*ck all. Some of the things they have done actually scare me.
One of them has published only a handful of articles and one book (and that was an adapted version of his PhD thesis) in the last ten years. Another has even less publications and clocked in an incredible 8 teaching hours over the last year. Another a couple of years ago was ‘funded’ to go to Australia for 6 months and seemingly did nothing out there as he hasn’t even spoken about it since! No ‘research’ he was supposed to have conducted has turned up anywhere and he avoids it in conversation.
It’s a sorry state to think of those that flagrantly abuse the system when there are geniunely good, passionate, and hardworking people out there that deserve these positions so much more…..
July 23, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Whether Mark Taylor is right or not, and he’s not, we’re likely to hear more of these arguments as the starve the beast policy that has been the conservative policy for decades begins to take hold. With the financial crisis of 2008 migrating to state and local governments, the outrage against the bailouts, the rise of the tea party movement, etc. is creating a condition where there is very little political will raise revenues to support public institutions, such as state colleges and universities, among others of course. As a result, public institutions will come under increasing pressure and their service to the public good – a concept that seems to get lost in much of the debate one hears – will become secondary to cutting costs, increasing efficiencies, etc. So what better way to increase efficiencies than to fire dead weight tenured professors and replace them for assistant professors at half the cost, or even better contract work such as Levi wrote about. So Taylor’s argument will be heard again and again. In my state they’ve recently changed the rules to fire tenured professors – all in the name of efficiency and improving graduation rates. When once a university had to declare financial exigency for the entire university they can now simply downsize a department by eliminating a degree program – philosophy anyone? – and if there are as a result not enough sections for tenured faculty to teach, they can be let go. At my university we eliminated the French major – and this is a university in Louisiana – and three tenured faculty were let go, one just two months shy of being granted citizenship (which was conditioned on being employed). With a double dip recession looming we’ll see a lot more of this I fear, and more apologists like Taylor singing its praises.