Georgia abolishes tenure.

[Parasaurolophus]

The board of regents has voted to eliminate tenure protections at public universities in Georgia. Let the exodus begin!

[Vkw10]

Based on that article, Georgia hasn't abolished tenure. They've updated the post-tenure review policy. Their updates weaken tenure protections, since two consecutive unsatisfactory post-tenure reviews are cause for termination, but tenure still exists.

[Golazo]

I'm not convinced that this is legal for professors who already have tenure (see the contracts clause, as the regents are acting on behalf of the legislature). I suspect that the system will be successfully sued or a reach a significant settlement the first time it tries to dismiss someone under this, given that this is a public university and it has already given professors different contractual assurances. 

[Ruralguy]

Probably contractually legal if they followed their own processes for amending these rules. But I'm sure someone will challenge it.

[mahagonny]

'Hi! it's Stacey!' writes

"Academic freedom guaranteed by tenure is more than a hiring gimmick," Abrams wrote on Twitter. "Georgia cannot compete for talent or produce innovation if we undermine our public universities. (The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia) has already abandoned the physical health of our schools. Let's not destroy intellectual capacity as well."

So if
not having tenure is undermining the university, and
adjunct faculty will never have tenure, and
the Georgia state system uses adjunct faculty then

Abrams' prediction actually came true thirty years ago. So what's the fuss about?

Probably contractually legal if they followed their own processes for amending these rules. But I'm sure someone will challenge it.

Of course. That's what talent's for, and why you should pay extra for them.

[Caracal]

Probably contractually legal if they followed their own processes for amending these rules. But I'm sure someone will challenge it.

It also seems to give a lot of leeway to the individual universities, so I wouldn't be too surprised if some universities issue policies that limit the effect of the change.

[ergative]

I don't know about the rest of you all, but I'm enjoying pronouncing the thread title semi-phonetically.

Gerrrrrrrgia!

[mamselle]

I was just pondering asking the mods to correct it.

But maybe, like you say, it's kind of fetching....

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't know about the rest of you all, but I'm enjoying pronouncing the thread title semi-phonetically.

Gerrrrrrrgia!

Oops! Gergia on my mind, I guess.

[eigen]

'Hi! it's Stacey!' writes

"Academic freedom guaranteed by tenure is more than a hiring gimmick," Abrams wrote on Twitter. "Georgia cannot compete for talent or produce innovation if we undermine our public universities. (The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia) has already abandoned the physical health of our schools. Let's not destroy intellectual capacity as well."

So if
not having tenure is undermining the university, and
adjunct faculty will never have tenure, and
the Georgia state system uses adjunct faculty then

Abrams' prediction actually came true thirty years ago. So what's the fuss about?

Probably contractually legal if they followed their own processes for amending these rules. But I'm sure someone will challenge it.

Of course. That's what talent's for, and why you should pay extra for them.

I hesitate to engage, but... You realize there's a difference between 0% of the faculty having tenure protections, and some of the faculty not having tenure protections?

[mahagonny]

'Hi! it's Stacey!' writes

"Academic freedom guaranteed by tenure is more than a hiring gimmick," Abrams wrote on Twitter. "Georgia cannot compete for talent or produce innovation if we undermine our public universities. (The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia) has already abandoned the physical health of our schools. Let's not destroy intellectual capacity as well."

So if
not having tenure is undermining the university, and
adjunct faculty will never have tenure, and
the Georgia state system uses adjunct faculty then

Abrams' prediction actually came true thirty years ago. So what's the fuss about?

Probably contractually legal if they followed their own processes for amending these rules. But I'm sure someone will challenge it.

Of course. That's what talent's for, and why you should pay extra for them.

I hesitate to engage, but... You realize there's a difference between 0% of the faculty having tenure protections, and some of the faculty not having tenure protections?

Several differences but I wouldn't agree they are all positive in the presence of tenure. In my experience, the tenure-less school is a better place to work as a part timer. Worker solidarity.
Fewer lawsuits over discrimination would be one difference I expect. Much lower legal costs, insurance, etc. for the institution.
Actually though as someone noted upthread, they're not eliminating tenure at all. Just strengthening the tests it is subjected to after the awarded tenure has happened. These things always get so exaggerated. I've been hearing for thirty years that tenure is going away. It never does. But I guess that language is not surprising given that tenure itself is predicated on the need to counterbalance a threat.
In my opinion Abrams is chiming in because any slippage of power to the tenure system may be felt in the democratic party's influence. If she's worried the smartest people won't be going into teaching, then it might seem odd that she also wants some of the more uneducated, unenterprising Americans to vote.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Based on that article, Georgia hasn't abolished tenure. They've updated the post-tenure review policy. Their updates weaken tenure protections, since two consecutive unsatisfactory post-tenure reviews are cause for termination, but tenure still exists.

This is my read as well. It may be a slippery slope, however.

In any case, tenure is a workplace benefit that offsets relatively low university pay. If tenure goes in GA, then faculty should (to the extent that they are willing and able) leave for better pay or better job security elsewhere.

the tenure-less school is a better place to work as a part timer. Worker solidarity.

To make the workplace more pleasant for people with crappy jobs, make other people's jobs crappier as well!

[mahagonny]

To make the workplace more pleasant for people with crappy jobs, make other people's jobs crappier as well!

That's doesn't work. But I'll tell you something that does: Properly answering arithmetic questions. My non-tenure granting institution pays me roughly 35% more per hour. Part time and full time are in the same union in the non-tenure school. In the tenure school not only are we not in the same union the tenure faculty union made a point of excluding us from the outset.

I expect people to be unable to fathom any thought process other than professional jealousy. I'm used to it.

In any case, tenure is a workplace benefit that offsets relatively low university pay. If tenure goes in GA, then faculty should (to the extent that they are willing and able) leave for better pay or better job security elsewhere.

Fine. They'll be replaced, too.

[marshwiggle]

If this is true,

In any case, tenure is a workplace benefit that offsets relatively low university pay.

then either this will happen

If tenure goes in GA, then faculty should (to the extent that they are willing and able) leave for better pay or better job security elsewhere.

or pay will go up for faculty in Georgia.

If the latter happens, is that an improvement on the status quo?

[arty_]

In our school, post tenure review is once every five years. If some one has two consecutive bad post-tenure reviews, that suggests ten years of bad teaching/research/service. Does that really need protection? I don't think so.