From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Other attacks on research (Was: Re: The Cold War: a Golden Age...)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:38:13 GMT

In article <19739@ector.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>
>I must enter a dissenting opinion.  Tenure ensures that professors
>have at least some freedom of action.  Politics (at least in the CS
>departments I've seen and heard about) is vicious, and the only thing
>that protects the jobs of the political minority is tenure.  It's bad
>enough that many professors kowtow to the political majority in order
>to curry favor (in the form of equipment, lab space, etc.); if they
>had to bootlick just to keep their jobs, they'd not be able to work on
>unpopular yet significant research.

Yet not significant enough to warrant job opportunities elsewhere?  Hey,
if nobody wants to pay someone to untertake some form of "significant"
research, then who should pay for his/her work?  Students?  Taxes?
I say, eradicate tenure and let the academic market sort itself out.
Those who are capable and doing research of interest to _somebody_ will
find greater opportunity to readily move from academia to industry and back.
Without tenure, unhappy professors could more readily consider job
opportunities outside academia, knowing that tenure is not there to prevent
their return.  Departments couldn't afford to be as political since profs
could leave at will and frequently find equal (or better) opportunities
quickly in other schools or corporations.  The more rapid turnover would be
healthy for everyone.  Maybe we'd find more part-time profs, teaching 
evenings and sharing a practitioner's perspective.  For all but the PhD 
students, I see this as a much better alternative to the current system.
And frankly, the market is unlikely to welcome any more professorial/pure
research PhDs for some time to come.

Without tenure, the crushing load of "publish-or-perish" should diminish.
Students would be more likely to receive better education for their dollars
when "scut" publishing and pointless committee work are lessened.  More 
profs will come from industry bringing with them a "real-world" appreciation 
for the needs of the job market.  Deadwood teachers/researchers could be cut 
away.  Universities could respond quickly to market needs as they arise.

In eliminating tenure, I see very little bad arising from all this good.

>For example, if the head of your department is a strong proponent of
>systems work, and you are a theorist, you might be forced to stop work
>on your chosen area, if you didn't have a tenure system to protect
>your job.  Ack.

Fine by me.  If you can't find employment elsewhere, you ain't doing
valuable work.
>
>Never underestimate the vindictiveness of the petty and underqualified.

I think this applies better to those seeking the protection of tenure to
those who are willing to participate in a free academic market.

--
Randy
crawford@mitre.org

-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102