How a denial of tenure at Harvard became a national controversy

[bopper]

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/12/16/21020572/harvard-ethnic-studies-department

[tuxthepenguin]

I've read some coverage of this. The thing that strikes me is that this is posed as a rejection of a field of inquiry rather than an inappropriate denial of tenure. Harvard has high tenure standards. It's hard to get tenure there. They have a lot of money so they can afford to set high standards.

[pigou]

"Dr. Peña represents hundreds of years of racist and sexist marginalization and exclusion of women of color in the academy," Perlow said. Until the centuries-old bias in higher learning is recognized and reckoned with, the only lesson that will come of Peña's case is one BIPOC faculty know all too well. "Just like the lessons we've been taught from police violence, we know that no matter what we do or don't do, we are not safe," said Perlow.

I'm just going to let that stand without comment.

[apostrophe]

I've read some coverage of this. The thing that strikes me is that this is posed as a rejection of a field of inquiry rather than an inappropriate denial of tenure. Harvard has high tenure standards. It's hard to get tenure there. They have a lot of money so they can afford to set high standards.

I take your point about the conflation of topics but don't understand what you are getting at in the bolded part.

I don't know too much about this case aside from LGP having a very well-reviewed book from Duke University Press. My two cents is that Harvard's demonstrably false claim that it tenures only the 'best' people in all fields needs more light shined on it.

[Bede the Vulnerable]

[/quote]

I don't know too much about this case aside from LGP having a very well-reviewed book from Duke University Press. My two cents is that Harvard's demonstrably false claim that it tenures only the 'best' people in all fields needs more light shined on it.
[/quote]

Yup.  The definition of "best" is, of course, highly subjective.  (My alma mater makes this claim as well.)  One of my closest friends in the profession was denied tenure at Harvard after winning the big award in our subfield for a book on HUP.  Others in the cohort made tenure with lesser publication records. 

Like you, I don't know too much about this particular case.  So perhaps she herself did not "deserve" tenure.  I can't say.  But the "we only tenure the best" assertion in suspect in this case.

[mamselle]

Your outside letters (usually 6-7 are sought) must all rank you within the top three in your field, globally, otherwise it's unlikely you'll be tenured.

M.

[Caracal]

Like you, I don't know too much about this particular case.  So perhaps she herself did not "deserve" tenure.  I can't say.  But the "we only tenure the best" assertion in suspect in this case.
[/quote]

You can make standards so high that a process becomes completely opaque. If the top three in the field thing is right, that's ridiculous on its face. How do you determine where the boundaries of a field are? Does it matter that some fields are smaller than others? Isn't this a bizarre, weird, and stupid way of thinking about scholarship in the first place?

The point of having clear standards for tenure is that it reduces the chance for bias of various forms to creep in, but if the standard is that you have to be an internationally recognized genius, that basically just gives you cover to deny tenure for whatever reason you want. One could also point out that setting standards like this doesn't serve any actual purpose besides inflating egos, but I often think that is basically the point of Harvard as an institution in the first place...

[mahagonny]

"Dr. Peña represents hundreds of years of racist and sexist marginalization and exclusion of women of color in the academy," Perlow said. Until the centuries-old bias in higher learning is recognized and reckoned with, the only lesson that will come of Peña's case is one BIPOC faculty know all too well. "Just like the lessons we've been taught from police violence, we know that no matter what we do or don't do, we are not safe," said Perlow.

I'm just going to let that stand without comment.

Channeling Prytania, if I were Asian American or other ethnic minority and my kid has a chance to go to a good school, I might be hoping she learns a field that will make her a good living. Then she can be pretty darn safe. But with Asian American Studies credentials? Not so sure.

I don't know how to say this is in a scholarly way, but the people who fight for these victimology programs seem to want to educate society more about their oppression by getting more strongholds in the university. Whereas, you visit red-state America, most people there don't give a darn what's being taught at Harvard. You're not affecting them that much. You may even be alienating them. Whereas, if you're a doctor, accountant, lawyer, engineer who's Asian American...well, you're a successful professional with equity, professional standing, options.  People either have to accept it or they have problem. You're moving your people upward. You go anywhere you want and live there, cause you've made it.

[pigou]

The point of having clear standards for tenure is that it reduces the chance for bias of various forms to creep in, but if the standard is that you have to be an internationally recognized genius, that basically just gives you cover to deny tenure for whatever reason you want.

And everyone who is hired tenure track at Harvard knows this going in. Yes, it's very likely that you won't get tenure -- and in exchange the average salary for an Assistant Professor is $120k ($230k for full professors). It'd probably be a lot easier to get tenure at Boston College, but the salary there is on average $110k and $180k, respectively. Over the years, this difference adds up to real money. On top of that, there tends to be a lot more money for research and travel.

Everything has trade-offs. The job that guarantees you lifetime employment, offers maximal research and travel support, and pays the most... doesn't really exist for someone coming right out of grad school.

[Hegemony]

I disagree strongly that these programs are all "victimology" and self-indulgent self-absorption, but in any case the validity of the field is irrelevant here.  The question is whether the candidate was justifiably denied tenure in the field, and we simply don't have the evidence to weigh in on the case.

[Caracal]

The point of having clear standards for tenure is that it reduces the chance for bias of various forms to creep in, but if the standard is that you have to be an internationally recognized genius, that basically just gives you cover to deny tenure for whatever reason you want.

And everyone who is hired tenure track at Harvard knows this going in. Yes, it's very likely that you won't get tenure -- and in exchange the average salary for an Assistant Professor is $120k ($230k for full professors). It'd probably be a lot easier to get tenure at Boston College, but the salary there is on average $110k and $180k, respectively. Over the years, this difference adds up to real money. On top of that, there tends to be a lot more money for research and travel.

Everything has trade-offs. The job that guarantees you lifetime employment, offers maximal research and travel support, and pays the most... doesn't really exist for someone coming right out of grad school.

Oh sure, I'm not worried about Harvard professors who don't get tenure. I just think that like a lot of things about ultra elite universities, the point is to cultivate the elite image rather than good scholarship or teaching (ha)

[mahagonny]

I disagree strongly that these programs are all "victimology" and self-indulgent self-absorption, but in any case the validity of the field is irrelevant here.  The question is whether the candidate was justifiably denied tenure in the field, and we simply don't have the evidence to weigh in on the case.

Only if you're a fan of tenure in the first place. If you're not so much, the growth of fields that can only be defended as faintly as you just did is more compounding of the basic problem. Of course I understand the fascination and reverence for tenure are given in these venues. But if one has the audacity to look at higher education in terms of what it does for Americans who will never be getting tenure, as well as what it needs from them, to do that, there may be room for other points of view.

[apostrophe]

The point of having clear standards for tenure is that it reduces the chance for bias of various forms to creep in, but if the standard is that you have to be an internationally recognized genius, that basically just gives you cover to deny tenure for whatever reason you want.

And everyone who is hired tenure track at Harvard knows this going in. Yes, it's very likely that you won't get tenure -- and in exchange the average salary for an Assistant Professor is $120k ($230k for full professors). It'd probably be a lot easier to get tenure at Boston College, but the salary there is on average $110k and $180k, respectively. Over the years, this difference adds up to real money. On top of that, there tends to be a lot more money for research and travel.

Everything has trade-offs. The job that guarantees you lifetime employment, offers maximal research and travel support, and pays the most... doesn't really exist for someone coming right out of grad school.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with these numbers (that are in part connected to high cost of living), or where you got them, but they are way off for the humanities field LGP is in.

Anyway, it sounds like Caracal, Bede, and I are on the same page. 6-7 outside letters seems like a small number to me, by the way.

[pigou]

I got them from the Chronicle. And Harvard and Boston College are pretty much in the same area, so I don't think cost of living is going to differ that much for faculty.

My point is that the lower likelihood of getting tenure is compensated via higher salaries. You take a bet that, if it pays off, leads to much higher lifetime earnings. Nobody is forcing anyone to accept a TT position at Harvard. They probably also got offers at universities with much higher tenure rates and could choose to go there instead.

[apostrophe]

I got them from the Chronicle. And Harvard and Boston College are pretty much in the same area, so I don't think cost of living is going to differ that much for faculty.

My point is that the lower likelihood of getting tenure is compensated via higher salaries. You take a bet that, if it pays off, leads to much higher lifetime earnings. Nobody is forcing anyone to accept a TT position at Harvard. They probably also got offers at universities with much higher tenure rates and could choose to go there instead.

That's not what I meant or thought I said. I don't mean to pick on you pigou, since my complaint is about something else, but let me be more explicit about what I find troublesome in this kind of thinking. Both of the salaries you quote are higher than average because of the high cost of living in the area. Because the Chronicle's numbers are averages that do not reflect actual salaries in the humanities, your claim that "differences add up" is not yet supported by accurate data. If, as many of us seem to believe, tenure rates at Harvard are extremely low, the idea that "getting tenure is compensated via higher salaries" seems flawed. If our first idea is right, that tenure rates at Harvard are extremely low, then I think it follows that Harvard is hiring most of these highly-paid faculty at the associate level or above.

My complaint, while pointed in this case at Harvard, is a general one about the hyperbolic way the academy frames success. The cloak that 'only tenuring the very best' provides annoys me personally and has deleterious effects.