No. Because they would have been hired and retained anyway.
Every school that has a tenure system has a procedure and rules. So, while rules can always be played with, a conservative such as myself, once hired, can always point to their right to due process and to what is called "adequate consideration." That means if I publish two books and some lib headcase publishes two books, I still get the same credit toward tenure or I call my lawyer. These rules are usually spelled out in very thick handbooks which constitute our contracts. If I am discriminated against, I can take it to a jury. Jurors tend to dislike academics anyway so when someone gets a case in court like this, the conservative has a real good chance of winning.
Most schools would never take this chance and so the game is fair--up to a point. And that point is not saying anything so conservative that it keeps you from getting published (until after tenure.) I know in my case I stuck to statistics until I had been tenured and promoted.
It worked and now it would take a lot to dump me.
McVey
That's not a valid assumption.
You're arguing only against tenure for conservatives -- and not abolishing the tenure rules for everyone -- and then the community and not the self-serving interest controls the hiring and firing.
Everything changes and not just one thing -- tenure for conservatives.