One More Hoop For Tenure

Inside Higher Ed has a story this morning about a new tenure policy introduced by the University of Toledo's president, Lloyd Jacobs:  Candidates up for tenure must meet with the president for a 30-minute chat.  While faculty are upset about the policy, the article makes it sound like the presidential visits are, for the most part, a formality. 

Let's think about some of the consequences of this policy.  On the one hand, the president has a bit more that he can stuff in his CYA file.  On the other hand, it opens the door for comments that could be used in a lawsuit. 

The policy can be thought to be introducing one last fail-safe before the university either cuts ties with a candidate denied or commits to an insanely long labor agreement with a candidate granted tenure. 

My biggest problem with the policy involves opportunity cost.  Presidential time seems like a tremendously scarce resource.  Time with tenure candidates is time not spent shaking hands, raising money, managing the university budget, etc.

Finally, if presidential chats ever become more than formalities and actually result in decisions being overturned, you can expect successful candidates to be, at the margin, tilted a bit more towards being more polished and able to explain their research and teaching interests succinctly. 

Comments

[John David Galt]

Please pardon me if this is a stupid question, but I've never worked in academia: Why does such a thing as tenure continue to exist? It seems an unwise commitment on the part of the institution, and one that can easily backfire.

Is there a law somewhere requiring that universities give tenure to any instructor who stays there more than X years, for some number X? Or is it merely a custom that institutions follow because "everybody has always done it that way," like the outgoing custom of lifetime employment in Japan? My guess is that it's the latter -- and will go away soon, for the same reason: it no longer makes economic sense, if it ever did.