[LS]

The original idea behind tenure was that academics needed to be free from pressure of the crown or even the civil authorities in order to pursue true knowledge. If, for example, you worked in Massachusetts and came across some remarkable scientific evidence that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, intelligent life before birth, you wouldn't want to be afraid of making that public, or continuing your research, if you thought that the liberals would fire you.

Likewise---this didn't happen, but it's a good analogy---say Charles Murray had been an untenured academic in a PC state when he wrote "the Bell Curve." He would have been fired for daring to speak heresies.

Sooner or later, tenure does protect legitimate research from social impingement. It allows science to "go where the evidence leads."

While I believe in markets and personally think I would have no trouble competing in a truly open market, I do see the value of tenure in times of social upheaval.

[maxwellp]

Thank you very much for the explanation.