The argument that universities aren't businesses ("Tenure and the future of the university," D. Clawson, Education Forum, 29 May, p. 1147) has a great deal of traction among faculty members. However, it is ludicrous to suggest that running a university efficiently is possible without applying some hard-nosed concern for maximizing revenue and minimizing costs. Perhaps those committed to the continuance of the tenure system should consider that the definition of academic freedom need not encompass academic inactivity. If personnel decisions are left in the hands of faculty members, surely the "professionalism" mentioned by Clawson is sufficient to ensure the free speech and creativity of the university even without a tenure system. Understood this way, it may be that faculty members should truly draw a line in the sand at the retention of the right to make appointment decisions for academic personnel, not at the continuation of tenure.

Lester K. Su

Clawson proposed that when administrators cut costs by increasing the percentage of non–tenure-track and part-time faculty positions, the process of teaching becomes a process of content delivery, teaching to the test, and delivering a standard curriculum determined from above. There is no connection between these two scenarios. I have a full-time teaching position at a for-profit college and a part-time teaching position at a community college. Neither position is tenure-track. Both colleges have programs in place to help all faculty develop teaching methods, creative lesson plans, and sensitivity to students' learning styles.

Content delivery and teaching to the test are unfortunately all too common, but they are unrelated to issues of tenure or employment status. Arguably, without the incentive of a need to prove themselves daily, tenured faculty may be more likely to resort to such practices.

Clawson's references to professionalism were also misdirected. The term "professional" applies as much to non–tenure-track and part-time faculty as to tenured faculty. It also applies equally to those engaged in many endeavors outside of academia. The term in no way implies an exclusive right to self-evaluate or self-police. All professionals, including all faculty, are accountable to others and therefore subject to outside evaluation.

Clawson pointed out that first-year students are less likely to return if their courses are taught by part-time faculty. This comparison between full-time and part-time faculty is unrelated to the issue of tenure. Clawson also noted that, given a choice, faculty prefer jobs in the tenure system. The implication was that the tenure system is inherently superior. However, it is more likely that a preference for such a position simply reflects a preference for greater job security and comfort.

The elitist view that tenured faculty are somehow above scrutiny, have a more altruistic vision of a larger good than others, and are the exclusive champions of education, is a view whose time has expired. It is time for the tenure system to expire as well, and to move forward with a system in which all faculty must prove themselves daily. This system works efficiently and fairly in other professions and could work efficiently and fairly in the academic professions as well.

Kenneth R. Gordon

Tenured and tenure-track faculty as well as university administrators need an incentive to meet student needs and to value those faculty who provide teaching services. A simple solution would be to tie a university's overhead rate on federal grants to the percentage of teaching services provided by tenured and tenure-track faculty. In such a system, a department delivering 75% of its teaching services with non–tenure-track faculty would receive only 25% of the normal overhead payment on the grants of its faculty.

Such a system would give both tenured and tenure-track faculty and administrators a financial incentive to extend tenure to more of their colleagues and to re-evaluate departmental decisions to farm out large introductory courses to non–tenure-track faculty. The balance of funds could be placed in a national fund reserved for professional development and research for non–tenure-track faculty, fulfilling a serious need, as these faculty generally have no access to the regular research funds needed to remain active in research and to escape the academic underclass.

Sadredin Cyrus Moosavi

I argue that a strong tenure system is vital if universities want to emphasize free speech and creativity, and note that the tenure system is strongest at leading research universities and liberal arts colleges and weakest at for-profit colleges and community colleges. That certainly does not mean that all individuals with tenure-system positions promote and uphold the values and practices of student and researcher creativity. Nor does it mean that non–tenure-system faculty abjure these values and happily engage in "content delivery" and teaching to the test.

The issue here is not moral values but structural position. You can be moderately well paid, teach two courses a semester, know that you can stay for your lifetime and expect to do so, have full control over the syllabus and readings for your courses, be encouraged to develop new course offerings, and be actively involved in the governance of your institution. Alternatively, you can be teaching eight courses a semester scattered over three different institutions, never know where (or if) you will be teaching the next semester, not have an office, not be involved in decisions about the institution, have to use a syllabus and readings selected by someone else, and be earning far less than the average holder of a bachelor's degree. You will most likely develop a different set of attitudes and behaviors as the result of occupying a different place in the system. The practice will necessarily be different even if the goals and values start out the same. The point is to develop systems that encourage and protect all faculty.

Gordon reports that in both of his teaching situations, the college predetermines his course syllabi. That is rarely the case at highly selective research universities and liberal arts colleges. Gordon also reports that he nonetheless exercises creativity and encourages it in his students. I absolutely believe that faculty in non–tenure-system positions seek to be creative, but the structural conditions limit that creativity, as in the imposition of a standard syllabus.

Moosavi looks at the other side of the coin: Tenure-system faculty often cooperate in this process, seeking to guarantee their future advancement by shunning low-status activities and embracing high-status activities. In many cases, that means that they avoid teaching introductory students, or avoid teaching altogether. Moosavi points to an important problem, but I believe that it is not a consequence of the moral failures of tenured faculty, nor of the tenure system, but rather of the attack on the tenure system and the emergence of a two-tier faculty. The structural conditions encourage and reward this behavior. Moosavi suggests a structural change—tying university grant overhead rates to the percent of students taught by tenure-system faculty—to address the problem. I applaud the effort to develop such structural solutions.

Dan Clawson