TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.

Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.

oohrah wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.

Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.

I'm not "denying" her anything. If tenure is so critical and good, why aren't all professors given tenure? Why would one need protection from "administration" and others not? Tenure is bad. That's all there is to it and that's me excercising my 1st Amendment right. You being hypocritical and denying me my right?

oohrah wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.

Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.

We, private citizens, are disagreeing with her, which is OUR 1st Amendment right; we aren't denying her anything in the least. Just sayin'.

oohrah wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.

Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.

Tenure protect good teachers and bad teachers too. Just like a union. The only people that suffer are the students.

If I send my kid to A&M to become a lawyer, I would rather the liberals did not use my tuition money to spew their political beliefs at him as he is held captive in their classrooms. The law and the Constitution is pretty clear. Teach it and let the personal opinions be saved for discussion on your private time.

psijac wrote:

oohrah wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.

Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.

Tenure protect good teachers and bad teachers too. Just like a union. The only people that suffer are the students.

True.

However, service of students is why we hire teachers in the first place, and why tenure is a bad idea today. It was put in place to ensure a free exchange of ideas in academic environments. Today there is no such thing and it only keeps far out leftist loons from being fired for doing things that would get anyone else fired anywhere else.

Those with conservative beliefs aren't allowed to achieve tenure in the first place.

ELB wrote:Clayton Cramer was one of the participants in this symposium, and he has a couple posts about it on his blog. Worth reviewing...

He mentions Penrose in this one, noting that she also agreed with overturning Roe vs Wade and Lawrence vs Texas. His conclusion: "It is amazing how much gun control advocates are willing to give up in order to justify restrictive gun control laws: abandoning "free to choose" and gay sex just to ban guns. Oh my!"

He also quoted one politician's presentation: "...claimed that the federal assault weapons ban was beginning to work when Congress let it expire after ten years...". Um, yeah. Sure.

Dave Hardy, a lawyer and 2A activist who writes the blog Of Arms and the Law commented on Clayton Cramer's participation:

...a high point came when Clayton Cramer and others pinned Richard Aborn, former head of Brady Campaign. He had insisted that he and they were never for banning handguns, that was a canard put out by NRA to scare the average gun owner, they were perfectly comfortable with law-abiding people owning handguns (so long as they registered them). Oh, and they did want to ban "assault rifles."

The pin was: how can you be in favor of banning "assault rifles," which are involved in a fraction of one percent of homicides, and not really be in favor of banning handguns, which are involved in about 50% of them? No answer was forthcoming, but only evasion.

Genius! I'm going to use that from now on.

oohrah wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.

Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.

No, we are not denying anyone any First Amendment rights. Advocating she lose her job is not the same as advocating for the removal of a right. Or, to frame it differently, your employer has the right to fire you if he discovers you're carrying a gun (assuming no posting of signs or delivering of notice). He does not have the right to tell you not to carry at all.

Calling for someone to be fired (and a pseudo-public employee at that!) because that employee advocated the undermining and removal of a key portion of our founding document, especially when that employee was ostensibly hired for their knowledge of said document and laws (law professor, remember?) is akin to calling for a mechanic to be fired because he tried to replace engine oil with margarine.

And add me to those calling for the end of tenure. It protects the incompetent and the unqualified. Our rights were codified to protect them from government overreach, not to forever set a barrier between our words and actions and consequences for the same. One may claim that a university has no right to fire for "speech," given they take public funds, but if there's no right to fire, there's no right to hire, either.

Simply put, she failed at her job, and did so in a public forum. She should not be immune from the consequences of her incompetence.

Apparently, we've forgotten or were ignorant to the fact that certain liberal progressive professors are part of a an elite class that has no accountability to anyone for anything. On top of that, they have a six figure job for life.

Jeff Sandefer is on to something and I hope he is able to affect significant change in our public universities.

There are also conservative professors who enjoy tenure. You can't have it both ways. For example, there is serious research studying the statistical probabilities of intelligent design. I doubt many east coast universities would tolerate that.

Certainly there always a few bad apples in any system, but tenure exists to protect the academic freedom of the individual, inspire new uncharted research, and allows the researcher to obtain external funding (which the university takes a cut) that it might not get otherwise. There are always provisions to fire someone with tenure, but expressing an opinion is not one of them.

I reccognize that we are disagreeing with her opnion, but not denying her right to say it. But blaming it on the tenure system is not relevant. Major universities do not exist just to teach undergraduates, and they rely on the tenure system to attract and keep quality people. Professors "earn" tenure through a long process of performance and evaluation, so it is not just "given". There are universities that only teach undergradutes and do not grant tenure at all. They are successful in what they do as well, but they have different goals.

Like I said, it is not a perfect system, but it has its place. You can always vote with your feet, or your money.

Tenure creates another protected class of elites that is not necessary.

When did you "earn" your tenure?

oohrah wrote:There are also conservative professors who enjoy tenure. You can't have it both ways. For example, there is serious research studying the statistical probabilities of intelligent design. I doubt many east coast universities would tolerate that.

Certainly there always a few bad apples in any system, but tenure exists to protect the academic freedom of the individual, inspire new uncharted research, and allows the researcher to obtain external funding (which the university takes a cut) that it might not get otherwise. There are always provisions to fire someone with tenure, but expressing an opinion is not one of them.

I reccognize that we are disagreeing with her opnion, but not denying her right to say it. But blaming it on the tenure system is not relevant. Major universities do not exist just to teach undergraduates, and they rely on the tenure system to attract and keep quality people. Professors "earn" tenure through a long process of performance and evaluation, so it is not just "given". There are universities that only teach undergradutes and do not grant tenure at all. They are successful in what they do as well, but they have different goals.

Like I said, it is not a perfect system, but it has its place. You can always vote with your feet, or your money.

I'm want to find many tenured professors who are openly Conservative. I would submit that the tenure system actually accomplishes the opposite - it suppresses academic freedom because it institutionalizes the Liberal ideology. Of all of the major institutions where tenure is used, I ask for six examples where the majority of those who are tenured are Conservative. The Hillsdale Colleges are far and few between.

There is a reason for this. Conservative principles are deemed to be passe among the "enlightened". Like the career politicians (and the level of politics in most large educational institutions is mind boggling) the career academics use their power to stifle opposing thought.

For me, the argument for tenure is very much like the Chicago approach to gun control. It starts with a universally accepted idea - that there is too much gun violence. Then it twists the "solution" into a set of rules and actions the withdraw individual freedoms and promote both an ideology and continued governance by those who hold it.

I have a good friend who received his doctorate. He is extremely talented. Early in his career, he learned that he had to hide his Conservative political feelings in order to be even considered for a position on a university staff. He is now the head of department. If they found out that he is a Conservative, they would fire him tomorrow. That is NOT academic freedom.

mojo84 wrote:Tenure creates another protected class of elites that is not necessary.
When did you "earn" your tenure?

Most protected classes, IMHO, earned their status at one time or another. Protecting classes that don't need protecting doesn't have a strong historical basis. The problem is that we continue protecting them forever.

I think it's a bit like having unions. Generally, industries that got one unions deserved what they got at one time or another. When that changes years down the road, it's a bit hard to shake off - part of why Detroit got so screwed up a few years back. Paying guys $100k to do assembly line work with pensions, and heathcare / legal resources for life gets really expensive. No offense to our auto industry workers intended.

Academia is largely a place for liberal ideas. That's just how it is. Remember that some of these liberal ideas have had their place in history and contributed to the basis of our country too... Slavery, equality for women, property ownership rights - these were all "liberal" ideas at one time.

There are certainly tenure riding conservative professors, admittedly not as many. Trying to balance academia more towards the conservative side is not going to happen. You can't do that any more than you could balance leadership in conservative institutions like churches.

Churches aren't publicly funded with my tax dollars.



I an not talking about their tax exempt status that is afforded nonprofit organizations.

mojo84 wrote:Churches aren't publicly funded with my tax dollars.

We do have private colleges.. At last count, quite a few.. I didn't know you were concerned about only "public" universities. It's not like the liberal academic bias only exists with the public ones.

I understand why this sort of thing incensed conservatives... Especially out of a conservative school like A&M. Tenure may protect her job, but I assure you, comments have repercussions.