Tenure is unfashionable. Trustees, legislators, and a fair share of administrators describe it as a relic, an inefficiency, or a guild protection. There is some truth to each criticism. Tenure does shield underperformers. It does limit administrative flexibility. And yet, with all its faults, it is the load-bearing wall that stops American universities from completing the slow renovation into something that operates like a publicly traded company. Removing it would change the institution faster and more thoroughly than its critics seem to realize.
What tenure actually protects
Tenure does not protect bad teaching from review, nor does it protect misconduct from discipline. It protects faculty from being fired for the content of their research, the unpopularity of their conclusions, or the politics of their conversations. That protection sounds narrow until you notice that almost every other institution in modern American life lacks it.
Without it, the incentives within a university tilt sharply toward whatever pays the bills this fiscal year. Departments that produce inconvenient findings get cut. Programs that serve donors get expanded. Researchers who annoy state officials get nudged out through administrative pretexts. None of this requires explicit ideological pressure. It requires only the ordinary risk-aversion of senior administrators answering to boards.
The slow corporatization already underway
Adjunctification is the easy data point. Roughly two-thirds of college instruction in the United States is now delivered by contingent faculty without tenure protections, often without health insurance, often paid per course at rates that would embarrass a fast-food manager. The tenured ranks have shrunk, but the tenured class has also taken on a different character, increasingly clustered in well-funded programs that produce credentialed labor for high-margin industries.
Around them, universities have grown administrative apparatuses that resemble corporate structures, complete with branding offices, executive compensation packages, and revenue-tracking dashboards. The values of those apparatuses are not academic values. They are the values of any large enterprise managing risk and growing market share. Tenure is the brake on those values, applied unevenly, but applied.
What removing it would actually do
Critics imagine tenure-free universities as nimble meritocracies. The likelier reality is universities that look more like publishing houses. Faculty would be hired on multi-year contracts tied to grant revenue, enrollment performance, or political acceptability. Research that does not pay or that risks bad press would shrink. Long horizon work, the kind that occasionally produces foundational breakthroughs, would be replaced by short horizon work that satisfies KPIs.
Some of this is already happening at the margins. The reason it has not happened completely is that tenure exists, and the existence of even a partially tenured faculty creates a culture and a governance footprint that constrains the rest. Remove tenure entirely and the remaining culture has no anchor.
The takeaway
Tenure has real costs and they are worth discussing honestly. The discussion is incomplete without naming what tenure prevents. The choice is not between tenured universities and lean universities. It is between universities that retain a piece of the academic mission and universities that complete the transition into something else. The current system is imperfect. The alternative is worse.
Leave a Reply