Replies

You can rant all you want, and I wouldn't be opposed to ending tenure. But Richard Vedder, a conservative who has written "Going Broke by Degree," discounts any substantial gain to the capitalist aspects of universities caused by tenure. Now, if you have data or facts, I'd like to hear them. But the #1 factor in driving up college costs is not tenure (because faculty only get about 3% of all cost increases, while administration gets about 30% and buildings about 30%), but student aid. That is where reform must start.

You still appear to be clueless about the hiring process, which will in no way be affected by the end of tenure, becuase universities are NOT concerned with price or effectiveness. If they were, removing tenure might (and I still underscore MIGHT) make a difference. But I know some VERY conservative schools with tenure, and it didn't affect their price structure.

Now, explain to me again how even without tenure, the liberal faculty who sit on all the search committees and report to the liberal administrators have an incentive to a) keep and b) hire new conservative faculty?

[ Now, if you have data or facts, I'd like to hear them. ]

No data, just an anecdotal whining.. I do that..
I hate un-win-able scenario's and when the bad guys win..
I am only open to when the good guys win..

Tenure is just a chess move.. but a good one.. and it puts the good guys in double check.. The good guys shouldn't need tenure.. True, that a bad administration is the source of most of the malfeasance.. This tenure thing could capture attention of the rubes, like me, to a real problem..

Parsing intellectual discussions about the intricacys of running a University will bore the hell out of normal people.. Churchill (and others) being able to run rough shod over logical discourse is hard to touch .. BECAUSE HE IS TENURED.. tenure has BECOME sacrosanct to Universitys.. Touch THAT and you have them by the balls even if they don't have any.. Ok. one ball, the other ball is MONEY and Grants .. Harvard is rife with Churchills.. like Chomsky.. as is Berkeley.. and a buttload of other University's..

The subject of "TENURE" is a touchstone.. not the whole answer but it can be a catalyst for action.. Because one thing is certain a catalyst is needed for change to occur.. The "University's" cannot and will not help itself/themselves.. it must be forced upon them.. Socialism and socialists are NOT open to competing ideologies.. never have been, and never will.. and the system is run by hard core socialists.. not DUPES..