So I was pleased to see that the NYT had a new article, "Unions Subdued, Scott Walker Turns to Tenure at Wisconsin Colleges." I don't expect the NYT to be friendly to Walker, but I think there's some commitment to accuracy in the part of the article that presents the facts about what Walker is doing and how it compares to the way other universities handle similar matters. I'll boldface some things that I think are significant for anyone who wants to rationally puzzle through the problem:
A committee of lawmakers last week approved along party lines a proposal that would remove the notion of tenure in the university system from state statute, leaving the sensitive matter to the state’s Board of Regents, which oversees the system’s 13 four-year universities and some 180,000 students.So, that's the presentation from a serious newspaper that isn't on Walker's side. Is there cause for great alarm? As I've said, I haven't studied the problem in the depth it would take me to have a serious opinion as one of the tenured professors in the University of Wisconsin System, but it seems to me that we were unusual in having more material in the statutes, and this is making us more like other universities and tenure remains strong because the Regents, given more local control, will support it. I invite readers to argue with that proposition. Help me collect the sound reasons for mistrust in the Regents. I can see that 16 of 18 of them are appointed by the Governor.
Under the proposal, the board’s 18 members — 16 of whom are appointed by the governor subject to the confirmation of the State Senate — would be permitted to set a standard by which they could fire a tenured faculty member “when such an action is deemed necessary due to a budget or program decision requiring program discontinuance, curtailment, modification or redirection,” not only in the case of just cause or a financial emergency, as permitted previously. Critics deemed it tenure with no actual promise of tenure.
“The reality is that we are not eliminating tenure,” said Senator Sheila Harsdorf, a Republican, adding that she believed the effort had been misunderstood as a broad condemnation of tenure.
Wisconsin is rare for including tenure provisions for professors in its statutes rather than in policies set by regents or similar boards. “We are directing the Board of Regents to develop a policy, just as there is in so many states,” Ms. Harsdorf said. “It’s just a matter of recognizing the ability for chancellors and campuses to administer and manage their operations.”
Along with tenure, “shared governance” has been a central feature of academic life in universities generally, giving faculty members the primary responsibility for decisions about matters like curriculum, choice of subject matter, instructional methods, faculty status and research. Under the proposed changes in Wisconsin, faculty members would still advise leaders on academic and educational activities, and on personnel matters, but that advice would be “subordinate” to the powers of the board, president and chancellors....
“We are as a board and always have been and always will be supportive of tenure,” Regina Millner, the regents’ vice president, said in an interview. “Our commitment to tenure, our commitment to academic freedom, our commitment to a strong faculty with secure support for the work they do, it’s absolute.”
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
The coming financial crisis for universities makes such a policy important. Illinois is facing a crisis because of the embedding of pension rights in the state constitution.
Scott Walker is coming for your tenure, Ann Althouse. Be very afraid. No wonder you hate Scottie!
Saying that Walker is anti-tenure has all the mahalmarks of spin.
University teachers should have tenure for ten years -- after which they would have to leave. No exceptions.
Just don't mess with Coach Bo Ryan and former Cornhusker Barry Alaverez.
Please don't make this about me and my tenure. I'm 65 years old and can retire. This is about the whole University System, the tenured and the nontenured and all the students and future students and the people of the state of Wisconsin. I'm a pretty neutral observer, but I have enjoyed tenure. I left a job at a big law firm (Sullivan & Cromwell) and took a pay cut to enter this career path. It was worth it -- it was competitive in the market -- because of the long-term benefits that included the prospect of tenure. That's how the university competes in the marketplace. You might think that tenure removes me from the market that other people are stuck with, but it is part of the market, in the big picture.
All I needed to do is read the howling of liberals in the NY Times comment section to know that Walker is doing the right thing.
As I've said, I haven't studied the problem in the depth it would take me to have a serious opinion as one of the tenured professors in the University of Wisconsin System,
It's enough study to understand how ridiculous his opponents are though isn't it? Those whose position you summarized here:
[Walker is] coming in for a lot of criticism, from people who are trying hard to stir up outrage and fear that the Republicans are out to wreck the University of Wisconsin.
This legislation may or may not be exactly right. But two things are clear:
(1) When Walker and his University critics meet he is the only adult in the room.
(2) Anyone who relies on the left's characterization of events is functionally ignorant.
There was an episode of The Big Bang Theory where the comedic tension was over who would do what to get a tenured position that had just become available.
I think Sheldon tried to butter up some black administrator by giving her a gift, a complete set of DVDs of the mini-series Roots.
Hilarity ensued.
Please read the comments in the article. It's just priceless how every single liberal stoops to ad hominem attacks. They literally have nothing left but demonization tactics.
It strikes me as a move to better accountability. Some people will like this, some won't.
Also: a rather fair article for the NYT: good for them.
The bigger picture to me would include the concept that Government employees also, for all intents and purposes, have a form of tenure: once hired, rarely fired, with generous benefits and retirement not available to most of the Private Sector workers.
There is a lot of weight on one side of the fulcrum.
I am Laslo.
.
Ann's comment makes a great point you rarely hear. A job with an employment guarantee can attract quality workers while paying them less. Tenure is often presented as guarantee of academic freedom, or as a reward for quality research. I think it's mostly about money.
Everything can't be foot-long yellow polyurethane dildoes with realistic veins.
Sorry.
I am Laslo.
Tenure is a god-given right, didn't you know? Liberals would love to foist this on the private sector and private companies. That would really put a crimp in companies ability to adapt to changing circumstances - and slow down full-time employment.
University teachers should have tenure for ten years -- after which they would have to leave. No exceptions.
Why would a University want to kick out a star Professor who attracts millions of grant dollars to support graduate students and research?
Your comment has no basis in reality.
"this is making us more like other universities and tenure remains strong because the Regents, given more local control, will support it"
Exactly. Much ado about nothing. Except that it is an opportunity for WI Progs to demonize Walker.
New provisions look much like authority most boards already have.
Tenure is likely to change, since institutions need flexibility and must get rid of dead wood, but cost savings may be modest since the best people now trade off high income for job security and control over work.
So, tenure is no longer statutory. The regents will decide like everywhere else. Much ado about little. Why change it then?
So a Walker packed board of Regents can all but eliminate tenure and destroy the University. Evil will triumph over good. UW will have a low cost, low quality education taught by a bunch of low paid adjuncts.
I'm going with something a little less nefarious. I going to assume he is not a Marquette plant solely out to destroy UW. Perhaps he feels it in the long term best interest of the state university system if it has more flexibility in doling out tenure and retention of state employees. He didn't sell the plan because he viewed it as a small piece of his overall policy that had little immediate impact. Nah, it must an evil plot by and evil man.
Critics said the proposal, which is championed by Republicans in the Legislature, would burnish Mr. Walker’s conservative credentials as he is scrutinized by likely primary voters.
What the fuck does that even mean?!?
What the fuck does that even mean?!?
Mouthbreathers will love to hear that he is attacking smart people.
"A job with an employment guarantee can attract quality workers while paying them less."
That is the old concept of government work, like school teachers. It is no longer operational since unions entered the government labor equation.
Hard for me to understand what would be a negative about this. Seems like even the faculty should be in favor of moving more control to the Regents and out of the legislature. If UW is like most colleges and universities over the past couple of decades. the real budgetary problem is in the growth of non-teaching administrators and verious hangers-on. A lot of those jobs need to be eliminated in order to reduced costs and get tuition down to more reasonable levels. I beilive UW-Madison is the one a few years ago that created a "Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate Change". That is just laughable. I'll bet there are 100 empolyees in that organization. Get rid of it and anything else that is useless and the university would have more money to hold on to what really matters.
Skimming through this and yesterday's piece it seems to me that the legislature is putting a management tool where it belongs - with the Board of Regents.
I find it odd, perhaps just archaic, that tenure should be included in statutes. This kerfluffle is a good example of how misinformation/propaganda is spread to the ill informed.
Ann makes the excellent point that tenure is really part of a compensation package. It should be in the hands of the Regents who can apply it critically and with some flexibility. Reducing tenure to a fixed term with renewal on performance review makes sense to me although I guess it wouldn't really be "tenure" then just an employment contract.
“My reading of the changes suggests that whatever the Board of Regents adopts as its policy on tenure and shared governance can’t possibly be as robust as what has been on the books thus far.”
So I guess the argument is that instead of Wisconsin returning to the pack in not having tenure enshrined in statute, the other 49 states should change the way they do tenure to the way Wisconsin does it?
So if Wisconsin changes their rules to match the rest of the states, UW will no longer be able to compete for quality people?
What is frightening to these guys is that under the new laws, reform will be possible. Reform is never needed because until every worker in Wisconsin is taxed at 100% and their assets have been seized, and the Federal Govt can still borrow for a bailout, there is always more money!
At one time, making partner at a major firm was close to achieving tenure. Those days are long gone and it's a rare law firm that will not push or at least nudge out a partner that can't bring in sufficient business. It's a painful process for the partners to undertake, but it happens. I've been in difficult meetings with my partners trying to find a solution that made sense for the firm financially and still showed compassion and recognition of past performance. No winners in this at all.
I suspect that there are few professors in law facility that work 80-100 hours a week with half of that time being spent on prospecting for new clients. Or looked at malpractice insurance rates increasing every year, along with salaries for associates and staff and rent and tried to decide how to set rates to not drive clients away and still maintain a viable practice.
While I enjoyed my years as a practicing attorney, the happiest day of my life was when able to retire and do things that I wanted to do because they interested me. I was successful enough to achieve this in my mid 50's and have not looked backwards.
Went back and read through the comments. It's unanimous. Walker's only purpose is to destroy the education system in order to cut taxes for the rich and turn education into a business, which is part of the path to destruction, just as the Koch brothers have outlined for him.
UW was the only thing Wisconsin had going for it (an opinion widely held by those who reside elsewhere). Wisconsin will now suck, just like the other flyover states.
Dammitalltohell, Wisconsin needs to be like NY or California or all is lost!
Mouthbreathers will love to hear that he is attacking smart people.
I am sure that this is your interpretation, and the New York Times probably agrees with you that this is a cogent argument against Walker's position, but arguing that Walker's moves are wrong because they would help him politically is absurd. Which is probably why the paragraph just hangs there. They can't put a wink in their to all the liberals. Even the New York Times can't assert that the "mouthbreathers" are sub-human and shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
Or looked at malpractice insurance rates increasing every year,
Cry me a river.
SteveBrooklineMA said...
Ann's comment makes a great point you rarely hear. A job with an employment guarantee can attract quality workers while paying them less. Tenure is often presented as guarantee of academic freedom, or as a reward for quality research. I think it's mostly about money.
6/5/15, 9:36 AM
True but qualified. To make the really big bucks at a law firm one has to be a rainmaker and how many tenured professors are rainmakers? And more specifically to address Ann's point about tradeoffs, yes she as a lawyer did trade a higher paying position at a law firm to become a law professor but that doesn't necessarily apply to professors in other fields.
A job for life with no decisions from the employer over the status is literally a quasi governmental Aristocracy in a land that outlawed real titled aristocracy, once upon a time.
Tenure concepts are British in origin and entitled the Cambridge at Oxford scholars to stay around through the many Monarchy and Parliament authority changes, so long as a vicious Catholic did not burn you at the stake which ended tenure by ending your life.
American Colleges rightly prided themselves on using the Oxford model. But the College today has morphed into an assembly of stars overpaid like celebrities to be the cover for government mythology by wording official propaganda under a mask of scholarship or the once honorable idea of "science".
The EPA now pays Harvard and other Universities to lie about having done independent research on air pollution to fabricate Global Warming authority over Americans.
The tenure flexability is a revolt by the common Americans who have been enlightened by the internet to what is going on. It will succeed, until the internet is censored by the Obama World Governance types.
Hard for Governor Scott Walker to make an effort to explain this in detail without Candidate Scott Walker turning it into a national campaign talking point, which might not be in his interest, Wisconsin's interest, or UW's interest.
This is one of the downsides of sitting politicians running for office.
Like so many things, it's just the worst, except for all the alternatives.
(See the corruption in Ancient Rome that resulted from requiring politician to take years out of office before they were eligible to run for something else.)
Hey, I'm only 64. Don't know what got me saying 65... other than that it's the conventional retirement age. I grew up in an America where there was mostly mandatory retirement at 65.
"When Walker and his University critics meet he is the only adult in the room."
But he is the one who holds government power and he is seeking a hell of a lot more power.
He is held to a MUCH higher standard than his critics, who are, like me, just speaking about what should be done with power.
"where there was mostly mandatory retirement at 65."
The age was determined by Otto von Bismarck as the retirement age of the new German social welfare system. At the time, that was also life expectancy, Very efficient.
Hey, I'm only 64.
You young punk kid, you.
But he is the one who holds government power and he is seeking a hell of a lot more power.
Seeking? He already has it. He has complete power on every level of government in the state. They want to really screw over Madison and Dane County with that power. Because they are a nasty, vindictive bunch who have an endless thirst for power and control. Look at Shirley Abrahamson.
Small, limited government in action.
I've always thought it a shame that the word "tenure" didn't actually rhyme with "manure."
Yes, I know, the etymology of one is "to hold" and the other has something to do with hands, yet somehow the words seem to make such a good pair.
The relevant thought experiment here is what would happen if the Regents controlled tenure in Wisconsin and Walker wanted to bring it under statutory control.
Clearly, the people condemning this proposal would welcome the opposite, right?
Contrary to what people commenting here seem to assume, you can get fired if you have tenure. Punch a student, for example. It's just that you have to be fired for cause and there is a great deal of process.
Michael K said...
The coming financial crisis for universities makes such a policy important. Illinois is facing a crisis because of the embedding of pension rights in the state constitution.
Doc. It's 116 billion and counting. Madigan refuses to work with Rauner on budget cuts. Illinois credit is in the junk bond level. Property taxes have never gone down since I've lived here. I now pay more in property taxes than my yearly mortgage payment. Moving out in a couple of years.
Wisconsins university tenure problems are amusing in comparison.
@garage mahal:Small, limited government in action.
Ending state-funded universities would be a great limited government action. If only.
Devolving power to the Board of Regents is an step in the right direction for small government. Act locally.
If Walker were proposing to pass a statute to usurp tenure from the Board of Regents you'd be just as mad, garage. You have no principles, it's all who, whom with you.
garage mahal said... [hush][hide comment]
But he is the one who holds government power and he is seeking a hell of a lot more power.
Seeking? He already has it. He has complete power on every level of government in the state. They want to really screw over Madison and Dane County with that power. Because they are a nasty, vindictive bunch who have an endless thirst for power and control. Look at Shirley Abrahamson.
Small, limited government in action.
6/5/15, 10:24 AM
Wait, I think you are confusing Walker with Obama. All that Walker has done has been within the system, following the rules / laws of the system, right? As to Shirley, she was not voted back into that position by all of the Justices, right? Walker did not go in and appoint someone else, right?
You are not even trying anymore...
My understanding of the genesis of tenure was as protection of academic freedom so that ideas could be pursued whether currently popular or not. And that may still be true once granted. However, the granting of tenure in the social sciences and humanities has become a strainer in order to ensure that only those with the correct ideas and/or demographics get through. Having become a political instrument, it's no surprise that we have reaped the exact opposite of tenure's intent. I can't speak for the sciences and professional schools, but in my opinion tenure has overstayed its welcome.
@garage: That cartoon in the Isthmus link is the best example of projection I've seen since the days of Mike Konopacki going after Lee Dreyfus in the early 1980's.
Madison/Dane Co as the battered spouse? Hippie-punched Madison?
Devolving power to the Board of Regents is an step in the right direction for small government. Act locally.
Just don't sign a recall petition and your nomination to the Board of Regents won't be yanked, and be the son of a wealthy donor and your appointment is secured. If your career rested on a board appointed by a vindictive, authoritarian little prick like Walker you can bet the best talent will leave. Faculty is already being poached. They know this, and that's why they are doing it.
If you stand front and center at the crest of Bascom Hill, facing the Capitol, you will notice that the axis of State St, is out of alignment with Bascom Hill; the two iconic structures, Bascom Hall and the State Capitol, are askew. I used to ponder that as a student. Was it deliberate? Surely after 150 years it could have been straightened. I concluded that the lack of alignment was fixed in topography and was an underlying physical feature and not a defect.
If your career rested on a board appointed by a vindictive, authoritarian little prick like Walker you can bet the best talent will leave.
I'd say that any "talent" who thought in such a puerile fashion should leave.
Seeking? He already has it. He has complete power on every level of government in the state. They want to really screw over Madison and Dane County with that power. Because they are a nasty, vindictive bunch who have an endless thirst for power and control. Look at Shirley Abrahamson.
Speaking of crying me a river.
All Walker's doing is placing power where it belongs - locally (boards, etc.). In other words, he's reversing the damage done by the blue model in years past.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for a response as to what rights you had before that you don't have now.
All Walker's doing is placing power where it belongs - locally (boards, etc.).
He put power directly in his hands. Local control my ass. What a joke.
He put power directly in his hands. Local control my ass. What a joke.
Care to back up that bullshit statement? The Board of Regents isn't in his direct control, whether he appoints those people or not.
Don't stroke-out, Garage. Too many people rely on your idiotic whining for their daily belly laugh!
Ann Althouse said...
"When Walker and his University critics meet he is the only adult in the room."
But he is the one who holds government power and he is seeking a hell of a lot more power.
He is held to a MUCH higher standard than his critics, who are, like me, just speaking about what should be done with power.
First, we see he is proceeding at a deliberate pace, making incremental changes. Meanwhile his critics (mis)claim that his efforts are a sweeping effort "to wreck the University of Wisconsin" or "screw over Madison and Dane County". So he is meeting a much higher standard.
Second, I'm not highlighting this because I care about the particular issue at hand. I'm highlighting it because it shows who should be in control of the Wisconsin government in the first place. This isn't a choice between Walker and some mythical perfect liberal. It's a choice between Walker and the typical Wisconsin leftist politico either of or backed by the campus activist left. It's perfectly reasonable to judge Walker and the governing alternative by the same standard.
Wow... just wow. Ann, you've jumped the shark with that comment about Walker wanting more power. He wants to give power to the Board of Regents instead of having tenure in law. How is that him getting more power other than you hate him?
So making tenure more democratic = tyranny.
Now you can have your 2-minute hate.
Make sure you never turn off the Telescreens.
Doubleplusgood.
"Mouthbreathers will love to hear that he is attacking smart people"
Thank God you're out of harm's way.
It isn't "local control". It's control by the Governor as they appoint 16 of the 18 people who would vote on the matters. To claim THAT equals "local control" is laughable. So, far from an example of conservative principles which would actually seek to distribute power among many different strata in society (i.e. Burke's "little platoons"), this is nothing but the centralization of power in the hands of a chief executive.
This strengthens Walker's conservative cred how exactly? He looks like nothing but a big government crony to me.
My takeaway from garage mahal is that one can't understand Democrats without understating the concept of raw, mindless hatred.
garage would love Orwell's Oceania with the daily 2-minutes hate. He'd inform on anyone who even slightly was suspect of committing thoughtcrimes, resulting in their deaths. There is a special hell for people like that.
I suspect that the practical effect of this will be in 5 or 10 years when the University system gets level funded so the state can pay its retired workers, and the Regents have to cut somewhere. They will be able to do things like close departments that have low enrollment or are deemed low priority.
Anyway, I'm going to try to answer you, Professor, despite the handicap of not knowing precisely what is on Walker's mind. The key for me is the following statement:
"Wisconsin is rare for including tenure provisions for professors in its statutes."
I can foresee situations where it may be necessary to cut back on the size of departments, and possibly to eliminate departments or even whole colleges. And the last thing I'd want is to have decisions tied up endlessly in courts. Moreover there are risks in that the courts could direct "solutions" that could protect the employment of the professors at the expense of the students actually, you know, learning.
I can foresee situations where it may be necessary to cut back on the size of departments, and possibly to eliminate departments or even whole colleges.
Minnesota is plowing 500 million into education because their governor knows how to manage money. Republicans in this state need to cut hundreds of millions in education, because our governor doesn't know how to manage money.
I am still trying to figure out why it is a sin for the governor to refuse to use his power to appoint to appoint somebody who wants him removed from office.
Isn't his responsibility to represent those who voted for him? Isn't that what democracy looks like?
Isn't his responsibility to represent those who voted for him?
LOL. It's always nice to see the mask occasionally come off.
Who sets the tuition in Wisconsin? That's the only power that matters.
The only thing garage knows about the UW system is that he couldn't get in.
The resident fool said:
LOL. It's always nice to see the mask occasionally come off.
Hey, Numbnuts, did you forget Obama's "I won" remarks? Where was your indignation and snark then?
Despite your attitude there is absolutely nothing superior about your intellect, your principles, your honesty and your morality.
bu bu but but what about Obama>???? Where you when __________? Huh??????
Oh, and I'm still waiting for a response as to what rights you had before that you don't have now
Used to have the right for safety rules to be part of a collectively bargained contract with the state or a city (which was important, because those work sites are exempt from OSHA) but now those are all totally up to the whims of management.
Thanks for confirming my statements to the rest of the folks here.
All you idiots who voted for him, you got what you wanted, which includes the destruction of the once great state of Wisconsin. What morons.
All right. I've never suspected you of any variety of honesty, but since this issue may actually affect you, maybe you'll accept reality, for once.
I know that you've done well out of tenure and can just retire, but (1) once accepting what Walker is doing, the terms of your retirement package can be basically fucked with however, you public employee, you, and (2) I imagine every single one of your colleagues who has any knowledge of your online idiocy for the past decade now thinks -- correctly -- that you're an absolute shit, and that's finally banging through to you.
Thus:
1. "I haven't studied the problem in the depth it would take me to have a serious opinion as one of the tenured professors in the University of Wisconsin System." No shit....
2. "it seems to me that we were unusual in having more material in the statutes, and this is making us more like other universities and tenure remains strong because the Regents, given more local control, will support it" Do you mean other state university systems? In the SUNY system, tenure is determined by campus. At the community college level, it is a feature of collective bargaining and determined by contract with a union (now NYSUT). At the 4 year and beyond level it is negotiated campus by campus.
So Wisconsin is NOT like other state university systems -- youse guys are far more screwed.
3. If the Regents are political appointments, how does this translate to "local control"?
4. "Help me collect the sound reasons for mistrust in the Regents. I can see that 16 of 18 of them are appointed by the Governor."
I am certainly not going to do your research for you, but lots of law schools are going to have a shit of time justifying their existence as regards their graduates getting any sort of paying job after graduating with a lot of debt. I would not be surprised to see your own program getting utterly eviscerated. In other words, how many beans, exactly, do you want counted?
5. The Gen Ed faculty at UW are far more likely to become merely contingent workers. The system will become garbage in, garbage out.
In realty tenure is going away anyway; it is not just in Wisconsin. Many universities are limiting tenure track positions in favor of adjunct professors and other part-timers. They know the old model is not sustainable. I agree that administration should be pruned.
thers, Althouse got hers. That is all that matters to her.
If the UW law school closed after she left, I have seen no posts here suggesting that Ann would care.
Typical Walkerite,
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा