Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[pondering]

Now, in a big market such as the United States, any good academic capriciously made redundant will immediately find a new job.

This is simply untrue in many humanities fields. In my field at the intersection of medieval and early modern eastern European history (I'm generally considered too "late" to be a medievalist and too "early" to be an early modernist) there have been a total of two jobs in the last five years for which I would be a plausible candidate in the entire US. You're also not thinking about the difficulties of a mid-career move for a middle-aged tenured professor: 90% of what infinitesimally few job openings exist are aimed at ABDs/fresh PhDs or assistant professors, and few search committees would take someone who is one/two/three decades later in their career trajectory.

So again: without tenure, in many fields, a mid- to late career professor who is an internationally renowned star performer could still find themselves unemployed for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher and researcher. That is why even "high quality" people care about tenure.

[dismalist]

Now, in a big market such as the United States, any good academic capriciously made redundant will immediately find a new job.

This is simply untrue in many humanities fields. In my field at the intersection of medieval and early modern eastern European history (I'm generally considered too "late" to be a medievalist and too "early" to be an early modernist) there have been a total of two jobs in the last five years for which I would be a plausible candidate in the entire US. You're also not thinking about the difficulties of a mid-career move for a middle-aged tenured professor: 90% of what infinitesimally few job openings exist are aimed at ABDs/fresh PhDs or assistant professors, and few search committees would take someone who is one/two/three decades later in their career trajectory.

So again: without tenure, in many fields, a mid- to late career professor who is an internationally renowned star performer could still find themselves unemployed for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher and researcher. That is why even "high quality" people care about tenure.

I'm sure that's true. But the rest of what you describe is not the Texas institution. The tenured keep their tenure. Just no new tenure. I was trying to figure out what the effects of that would be. The last thing I want to do is write a paean  for or against tenure on this thread.

But don't say "find themselves unemployed  for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher...". If there are no students, there can be no productivity. Job protection in such cases is just a special perk of the profession, nothing more.

[pondering]

But don't say "find themselves unemployed  for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher...". If there are no students, there can be no productivity. Job protection in such cases is just a special perk of the profession, nothing more.

I'm talking about scenarios where there are still plenty of students, but senior figures decide to discard a given discipline anyway. (Also, research is half of a professor's job at an R1, and I'm talking about professors who excel in both teaching and research.)

Also, you're moving the goalposts in your attempt to argue that tenure would make no difference to the "highest quality" professors. First you were saying that they had nothing to fear as their inherent qualities would ensure they would keep their jobs, now you're accepting that some non-tenured but nevertheless high-performing professors might have some scenarios to fear, but too bad because tenure's just a "job perk"?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

[dismalist]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

My take indeed  is that nothing much will happen in Texas.

I have argued on another thread that tenure does not do what is said it does. As a wise army officer veteran once said to me: Never believe your own propaganda! But that's not for here.

Political interference? Maybe so. But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-) But here too there is a market. The lefties move out and the righties move in!

The arguments for lower State taxes are very partial truths. What's correctly  at issue is the value of services compared to the cost of taxes, not the level of taxes alone. But those specific services must be valued. Maybe a lean Texas public is preferable to a fat California one. This is something for the long run to work out in political competition.

[dismalist]

But don't say "find themselves unemployed  for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher...". If there are no students, there can be no productivity. Job protection in such cases is just a special perk of the profession, nothing more.

I'm talking about scenarios where there are still plenty of students, but senior figures decide to discard a given discipline anyway. (Also, research is half of a professor's job at an R1, and I'm talking about professors who excel in both teaching and research.)

Also, you're moving the goalposts in your attempt to argue that tenure would make no difference to the "highest quality" professors. First you were saying that they had nothing to fear as their inherent qualities would ensure they would keep their jobs, now you're accepting that some non-tenured but nevertheless high-performing professors might have some scenarios to fear, but too bad because tenure's just a "job perk"?

If the money followed the students, senior figures wouldn't arbitrarily discard things. They'd do it for good reason.

It is certainly true that some fields have grown too much faculty. In such cases, many senior people would lose their jobs without tenure and could not find a similar job. That's the perk of tenure. But it's not Texas.

[MarathonRunner]

It's hard for me to imagine any prof turning down a tenure job these days what with the market as it is----but then again, if I had a choice I would never apply to Texas or Florida.  Actually, I do have a choice and it would have to be a pretty impossibly sweet job for me to apply even given my circumstances right now.

As a Canadian going on the job market in the next two years, you can bet there are U.S. states where I wouldn't even bother to apply. I'd rather work as a professional in my field than be a tenure track or tenured prof in some US states. Honestly. But I'm in a discipline that has plenty of options that aren't in academia, and I'm not a U.S. citizen.

[pondering]

But don't say "find themselves unemployed  for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher...". If there are no students, there can be no productivity. Job protection in such cases is just a special perk of the profession, nothing more.

I'm talking about scenarios where there are still plenty of students, but senior figures decide to discard a given discipline anyway. (Also, research is half of a professor's job at an R1, and I'm talking about professors who excel in both teaching and research.)

Also, you're moving the goalposts in your attempt to argue that tenure would make no difference to the "highest quality" professors. First you were saying that they had nothing to fear as their inherent qualities would ensure they would keep their jobs, now you're accepting that some non-tenured but nevertheless high-performing professors might have some scenarios to fear, but too bad because tenure's just a "job perk"?

If the money followed the students, senior figures wouldn't arbitrarily discard things. They'd do it for good reason.

It is certainly true that some fields have grown too much faculty. In such cases, many senior people would lose their jobs without tenure and could not find a similar job. That's the perk of tenure. But it's not Texas.

But the whole point - which you're wilfully refusing to face - is that senior figures' decision making often is arbitrary (from the perspective of economic rationality). They are driven by ideological concerns. Thus, in the UK professors in such fields as archaeology, history, and literature have lost their jobs despite flourishing enrollments and great success in securing funding and writing impactful publications, because senior management in those universities decided they wanted fewer faculty in those disciplines. In the absence of tenure, this would almost certainly happen in the US too, especially when you add this country's pathological culture wars into the equation.

[dismalist]

But don't say "find themselves unemployed  for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher...". If there are no students, there can be no productivity. Job protection in such cases is just a special perk of the profession, nothing more.

I'm talking about scenarios where there are still plenty of students, but senior figures decide to discard a given discipline anyway. (Also, research is half of a professor's job at an R1, and I'm talking about professors who excel in both teaching and research.)

Also, you're moving the goalposts in your attempt to argue that tenure would make no difference to the "highest quality" professors. First you were saying that they had nothing to fear as their inherent qualities would ensure they would keep their jobs, now you're accepting that some non-tenured but nevertheless high-performing professors might have some scenarios to fear, but too bad because tenure's just a "job perk"?

If the money followed the students, senior figures wouldn't arbitrarily discard things. They'd do it for good reason.

It is certainly true that some fields have grown too much faculty. In such cases, many senior people would lose their jobs without tenure and could not find a similar job. That's the perk of tenure. But it's not Texas.

But the whole point - which you're wilfully refusing to face - is that senior figures' decision making often is arbitrary (from the perspective of economic rationality). They are driven by ideological concerns. Thus, in the UK professors in such fields as archaeology, history, and literature have lost their jobs despite flourishing enrollments and great success in securing funding and writing impactful publications, because senior management in those universities decided they wanted fewer faculty in those disciplines. In the absence of tenure, this would almost certainly happen in the US too, especially when you add this country's pathological culture wars into the equation.

For decisions to be arbitrary they must be throwing money away. How are UK universities funded? If by student, I highly doubt you are correct. What may seem arbitrary to you, may not be.

What allows arbitrary decisions is funding not dependent on students, including graduate students. This could be from taxes, of course, but also from endowments. Research grants are a possibility. Looks like government funding of higher ed has declined substantially in the UK. Tuition was introduced. Against this backdrop, it's not easy to determine that something is arbitrary.

Once again, it's not Texas!

[pondering]

But don't say "find themselves unemployed  for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher...". If there are no students, there can be no productivity. Job protection in such cases is just a special perk of the profession, nothing more.

I'm talking about scenarios where there are still plenty of students, but senior figures decide to discard a given discipline anyway. (Also, research is half of a professor's job at an R1, and I'm talking about professors who excel in both teaching and research.)

Also, you're moving the goalposts in your attempt to argue that tenure would make no difference to the "highest quality" professors. First you were saying that they had nothing to fear as their inherent qualities would ensure they would keep their jobs, now you're accepting that some non-tenured but nevertheless high-performing professors might have some scenarios to fear, but too bad because tenure's just a "job perk"?

If the money followed the students, senior figures wouldn't arbitrarily discard things. They'd do it for good reason.

It is certainly true that some fields have grown too much faculty. In such cases, many senior people would lose their jobs without tenure and could not find a similar job. That's the perk of tenure. But it's not Texas.

But the whole point - which you're wilfully refusing to face - is that senior figures' decision making often is arbitrary (from the perspective of economic rationality). They are driven by ideological concerns. Thus, in the UK professors in such fields as archaeology, history, and literature have lost their jobs despite flourishing enrollments and great success in securing funding and writing impactful publications, because senior management in those universities decided they wanted fewer faculty in those disciplines. In the absence of tenure, this would almost certainly happen in the US too, especially when you add this country's pathological culture wars into the equation.

For decisions to be arbitrary they must be throwing money away. How are UK universities funded? If by student, I highly doubt you are correct. What may seem arbitrary to you, may not be.

A combination of student tuition and government block funding apportionments for research. I know this is hard for you to comprehend because you've built your worldview around it (and disparage people who study the operation of social and cultural logics and discourses), but sometimes people make decisions based on "vibes," to put it colloquially. We live in a managerial culture that valorizes certain fields and buzzwords and disparages others, even if they objectively perform well. These impressions - not objective data or outcomes, but prejudices informed by prevailing cultural norms - shape choices that those in power make.

So in a sense, you're right that these decisions are not "arbitrary": there is a logic driving them. But it is a cultural logic detached that is not purely based on financial data. And tenure is prized precisely because it protects professors in disciplines that are disparaged within this neoliberal-managerial cultural framework.

[dismalist]

But don't say "find themselves unemployed  for reasons unrelated to their productivity and effectiveness as a teacher...". If there are no students, there can be no productivity. Job protection in such cases is just a special perk of the profession, nothing more.

I'm talking about scenarios where there are still plenty of students, but senior figures decide to discard a given discipline anyway. (Also, research is half of a professor's job at an R1, and I'm talking about professors who excel in both teaching and research.)

Also, you're moving the goalposts in your attempt to argue that tenure would make no difference to the "highest quality" professors. First you were saying that they had nothing to fear as their inherent qualities would ensure they would keep their jobs, now you're accepting that some non-tenured but nevertheless high-performing professors might have some scenarios to fear, but too bad because tenure's just a "job perk"?

If the money followed the students, senior figures wouldn't arbitrarily discard things. They'd do it for good reason.

It is certainly true that some fields have grown too much faculty. In such cases, many senior people would lose their jobs without tenure and could not find a similar job. That's the perk of tenure. But it's not Texas.

But the whole point - which you're wilfully refusing to face - is that senior figures' decision making often is arbitrary (from the perspective of economic rationality). They are driven by ideological concerns. Thus, in the UK professors in such fields as archaeology, history, and literature have lost their jobs despite flourishing enrollments and great success in securing funding and writing impactful publications, because senior management in those universities decided they wanted fewer faculty in those disciplines. In the absence of tenure, this would almost certainly happen in the US too, especially when you add this country's pathological culture wars into the equation.

For decisions to be arbitrary they must be throwing money away. How are UK universities funded? If by student, I highly doubt you are correct. What may seem arbitrary to you, may not be.

A combination of student tuition and government block funding apportionments for research. I know this is hard for you to comprehend because you've built your worldview around it (and disparage people who study the operation of social and cultural logics and discourses), but sometimes people make decisions based on "vibes," to put it colloquially. We live in a managerial culture that valorizes certain fields and buzzwords and disparages others, even if they objectively perform well. These impressions - not objective data or outcomes, but prejudices informed by prevailing cultural norms - shape choices that those in power make.

So in a sense, you're right that these decisions are not "arbitrary": there is a logic driving them. But it is a cultural logic detached that is not purely based on financial data. And tenure is prized precisely because it protects professors in disciplines that are disparaged within this neoliberal-managerial cultural framework.

If you stopped the name-calling, I'd largely agree.

I hadn't heard of the neoliberal-managerial cultural framework before! Thank you. :-)

Yes, some people want something for someone else to pay for. They can call it anything they want, such as cultural logic. Or alms. I'm afraid these kinds of discussions end up with "I want more", a statement worthy of two-year olds. Why do you want more, sweetheart? "Because", daddy, "because".

[Sun_Worshiper]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

My take indeed  is that nothing much will happen in Texas.

I have argued on another thread that tenure does not do what is said it does. As a wise army officer veteran once said to me: Never believe your own propaganda! But that's not for here.

Political interference? Maybe so. But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-) But here too there is a market. The lefties move out and the righties move in!

The arguments for lower State taxes are very partial truths. What's correctly  at issue is the value of services compared to the cost of taxes, not the level of taxes alone. But those specific services must be valued. Maybe a lean Texas public is preferable to a fat California one. This is something for the long run to work out in political competition.

You're probably right in one regard: Nothing will happen in Texas, at least not with this bill, because the House Speaker has opposed it.

But I have yet to read any compelling argument in this thread to suggest that nuking tenure would be good for Texas or for Texans, except perhaps for a few lesser job candidates that would suddenly find themselves competitive for jobs that the very good academics don't want.

[dismalist]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

My take indeed  is that nothing much will happen in Texas.

I have argued on another thread that tenure does not do what is said it does. As a wise army officer veteran once said to me: Never believe your own propaganda! But that's not for here.

Political interference? Maybe so. But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-) But here too there is a market. The lefties move out and the righties move in!

The arguments for lower State taxes are very partial truths. What's correctly  at issue is the value of services compared to the cost of taxes, not the level of taxes alone. But those specific services must be valued. Maybe a lean Texas public is preferable to a fat California one. This is something for the long run to work out in political competition.

You're probably right in one regard: Nothing will happen in Texas, at least not with this bill, because the House Speaker has opposed it.

But I have yet to read any compelling argument in this thread to suggest that nuking tenure would be good for Texas or for Texans, except perhaps for a few lesser job candidates that would suddenly find themselves competitive for jobs that the very good academics don't want.

As I said upthread, my take is indeed that nothing much will happen in Texas if the bill is passed, which is what we were talking about. The value of tenure in general is not germane here. I wrote against it in another tread.

But aside from substance, the emotions expressed suggests that tenure is seen as a holy grail, not a mere perk. I suppose that's why it's all repeating.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

My take indeed  is that nothing much will happen in Texas.

I have argued on another thread that tenure does not do what is said it does. As a wise army officer veteran once said to me: Never believe your own propaganda! But that's not for here.

Political interference? Maybe so. But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-) But here too there is a market. The lefties move out and the righties move in!

The arguments for lower State taxes are very partial truths. What's correctly  at issue is the value of services compared to the cost of taxes, not the level of taxes alone. But those specific services must be valued. Maybe a lean Texas public is preferable to a fat California one. This is something for the long run to work out in political competition.

You're probably right in one regard: Nothing will happen in Texas, at least not with this bill, because the House Speaker has opposed it.

But I have yet to read any compelling argument in this thread to suggest that nuking tenure would be good for Texas or for Texans, except perhaps for a few lesser job candidates that would suddenly find themselves competitive for jobs that the very good academics don't want.

As I said upthread, my take is indeed that nothing much will happen in Texas if the bill is passed, which is what we were talking about. The value of tenure in general is not germane here. I wrote against it in another tread.

But aside from substance, the emotions expressed suggests that tenure is seen as a holy grail, not a mere perk. I suppose that's why it's all repeating.

Ok, well we're going to have to agree to disagree on Texas, because I envision the state experiencing a brain drain as top faculty leave, with implications for grant money, for attracting top students, and for innovation.

On your other point, tenure is more than a perk, although it is that too. Tenure is the thing that allows people to undertake high risk research (both risky in terms of the time it takes and in terms of the feathers it may ruffle). It thus carries a societal benefit, while also carrying significant personal benefit to tenured professors.

[dismalist]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

My take indeed  is that nothing much will happen in Texas.

I have argued on another thread that tenure does not do what is said it does. As a wise army officer veteran once said to me: Never believe your own propaganda! But that's not for here.

Political interference? Maybe so. But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-) But here too there is a market. The lefties move out and the righties move in!

The arguments for lower State taxes are very partial truths. What's correctly  at issue is the value of services compared to the cost of taxes, not the level of taxes alone. But those specific services must be valued. Maybe a lean Texas public is preferable to a fat California one. This is something for the long run to work out in political competition.

You're probably right in one regard: Nothing will happen in Texas, at least not with this bill, because the House Speaker has opposed it.

But I have yet to read any compelling argument in this thread to suggest that nuking tenure would be good for Texas or for Texans, except perhaps for a few lesser job candidates that would suddenly find themselves competitive for jobs that the very good academics don't want.

As I said upthread, my take is indeed that nothing much will happen in Texas if the bill is passed, which is what we were talking about. The value of tenure in general is not germane here. I wrote against it in another tread.

But aside from substance, the emotions expressed suggests that tenure is seen as a holy grail, not a mere perk. I suppose that's why it's all repeating.

Ok, well we're going to have to agree to disagree on Texas, because I envision the state experiencing a brain drain as top faculty leave, with implications for grant money, for attracting top students, and for innovation.

On your other point, tenure is more than a perk, although it is that too. Tenure is the thing that allows people to undertake high risk research (both risky in terms of the time it takes and in terms of the feathers it may ruffle). It thus carries a societal benefit, while also carrying significant personal benefit to tenured professors.

Top faculty won't leave. Only bottom faculty, maybe. So, yes, we disagree about Texas.

About tenure, too, but that's for another time.