Tenure Is A Property Right

To: Neil Kestner, President of the Faculty Senate and Paul Farnsworth, Senator to the Faculty Senate, Department of Geography and Anthropology

     I may be late in expressing my opinion about the post-tenure review proposal by the University administration, but I will do so anyway. I would like to see the Faculty Senate and my departmental Senator, Dr. Farnsworth, resist fully this University initiative. I believe that each tenured faculty member at LSU has a contract with the University with respect to the basis for termination of that member's tenure and employment. Although the basis for retraction of tenure is not formally defined in any of the material that I have received from the University, there must be a long-standing "common law" on this issue. That is, tenure can be revoked based on past precedent.

     The University now wants to define more specifically the conditions for revocation of tenure. As I understand, the conditions basically involve three unsatisfactory annual evaluations. This current definition of the conditions must deviate significantly from the "common law" that has developed at LSU. Therefore, the University is trying to change the contract that it has with each tenured faculty member. I do not agree to such a change. A change in a contract can only occur with the consent of both parties. Therefore, I recommend that the Faculty Senate not agree to the University's position.  In fact, since the faculty are not unionized, I believe that either all tenured faculty members have to vote on this issue, or that each tenured faculty member has to agree individually to the change. I would fully support the Faculty Senate hiring a lawyer to resist the implementation of the proposed change. (I believe that this step has already been taken.) I believe that the faculty at LSU would provide the monetary support to hire the necessary legal help; individual faculty members do not have the financial resources to hire a lawyer to resist the University.

     The University may impose as many post-tenure reviews at it wishes. The Administration can have a daily review if it so desires. However, we cannot agree to its redefinition of the conditions for revocation of tenure. Based on "common law," tenure can be revoked only for egregious academic or moral behavior that substantially undermines the mission of the University. Three unsatisfactory annual evaluations are not equivalent to such egregious behavior.

     There are many valid arguments for tenure. The one that I wish to promote is that tenure allows a faculty member the opportunity to try to do big or long-term projects. The tenured faculty member may want to write a book or learn a new research area. Both such projects require several years of work before any meaningful results may be witnessed. But by pursuing such long-range projects, the faculty member may receive unsatisfactory annual reports. Therefore, to blunt the potential burden of one or two unsatisfactory reports, the faculty member may do little and short term projects. That is, we devolve to (or never develop beyond) writing short papers for quick publication.  The mentality of the untenured faculty member (i.e., write many short papers rather than one long book) will persist throughout our careers with the implementation of the University's proposal.

     Thanks for considering my opinion in your important work on the Faculty Senate.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Tague, Associate Professor

Department of Geography and Anthropology