A Letter from the PresidentAuthor(s): Walter AdamsSource: AAUP Bulletin, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Jun., 1973), p. 134Published by: American Association of University ProfessorsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40239757 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 13:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of University Professors is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to AAUP Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:10:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

One of the highlights of our recent Annual Meeting was the lively and critical discussion of the Keast Commis- sion's report on Faculty Tenure. Most of us were de- lighted with the Commission's unequivocal endorsement of academic freedom, tenure, and shared authority -

principles which have guided our Association since its

founding in 1915. In a central conclusion, the Commission affirmed

... its conviction that academic tenure, rightly understood and properly administered, provides the most reliable means of assuring faculty quality and educational excellence, as well as the best guarantee of academic freedom. So central is academic freedom to the integrity of our educational in- stitutions - and to their effectiveness in the discovery of new knowledge, in conservation of the values and wisdom of the past, and in the promotion of critical inquiry essential to self-renewal - that academic tenure should be retained as our most tested and reliable instrument for incorporating academic freedom into the heart of our institutions.

Our general approval of the report, however, did not blunt a serious concern with some of its specific recom- mendations, notably number 20 dealing with tenure quotas. Here the Commission had recommended

. . . that each institution develop policies relating to the proportion of tenured and nontenured faculty that will be compatible with the composition of its present staff, its re- sources and projected enrollment, and its future objectives. In the Commission's nearly unanimous judgment, it will probably be dangerous for most institutions if tenured faculty constitute more than one-half to two-thirds of the total full-time faculty during the decade ahead.

Many voices were raised against this recommendation. Professor Van Alstyne, reporting on behalf of Committee A, argued cogently that there is an inconsistency between the raison d'etre of the probationary period - in which the institution is given an adequate opportunity to assess the qualifications of a candidate for tenure against its own academic standards - and quotas - pursuant to which a candidate recognized to be excellent in every respect may be nevertheless denied tenure and his place offered to a new probationary appointee. The Special Committee on Nontenured Faculty, with Professor Yannella reporting, predicted that quotas, if widely adopted, would result in the emergence of "a gypsy-like tribe of permanently non- tenured faculty moving from place to place, if they can avoid dropping out entirely, waiting for a senior colleague to retire or die or enter full-time administration." The Special Committee characterized such a development as "disastrous." The Annual Meeting itself, in its resolution on quotas, voted that the Association should oppose their

imposition, viewing them "as an expedient dangerous to academic freedom and academic life." The delegates re- affirmed the principle that "decisions on tenure must

represent, first and last, judgments on individual merit." I think that these objections are exactly right, and I

believe we should oppose tenure quotas through our

chapters and conferences, our Committee A processes, and through a plain and unmistakable articulation of our case to the academic community. Tenure quotas won't

give institutions money; they will irrevocably damage careers. They will not yield greater "flexibility" than would be obtained through intelligent appointment and

promotion decisions; instead, they will create two classes of faculty members, one with security, and the other with- out prospect for advancement. They will not save posi- tions for our graduate students and our children; rather, they will make our profession unattractive to talented

young persons. The popularity of tenure quotas, hopefully only of brief

duration, clearly results from the economic conditions

prevailing in higher education today. Quotas may pro- vide momentary gratification for those administrators who see faculty as the root of all evil, but they won't help to solve our problems. They will create new, and much more difficult, dilemmas. My view is that instead of tink-

ering on the "supply" side of the equation, our efforts and

ingenuity ought to be directed to increasing the "demand" for higher education and the services it performs. Let us be perfectly blunt about it: the demand for higher education is not natural but artificial. It is not condi- tioned by exogenous and autonomous forces, but deter- mined by the man-made decisions of federal, state, and local governments. Such governmental decisions need not, as a matter of logic, favor guns over education. Indeed, if we had weapons quotas, we probably wouldn't be

discussing tenure quotas. Through our chapters, conferences, and national com-

mittees and staff, we can and must help redirect the politi- cal decision-making process. We must insist on an alloca- tion of public resources to assure an appropriate level of funding for higher education, and a recognition of its

proper priority in the scheme of social values. In this

fashion, we can keep faith with our nontenured colleagues and our graduate students, who stand most severely and

directly to be affected by tenure quotas, and with the

goals of our profession, which cannot be met if we cease

rewarding demonstrated merit. Walter Adams

134 A AUP BULLETIN

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:10:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions