The Faculty Lounge

In her new book The Faculty Lounge, and Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For, Naomi Schaefer Riley, in her investigation of tenure in Higher Education writes that she is met with the argument of "tenure is the best protector of a professor's right to teach and research freely" and that every professor "needed such a shield." The author's opinion is that "the tenure process, which to a greater extent than ever rests on a professor's research rather than his teaching qualifications, is what is eroding  American higher education from the inside out." She touches on a problem that most conservatives are all too familiar with as she implies that once tenured, professors tend to follow their own intellectual pursuits thus ultimately taking the entire college with them. Schaefer Riley takes the argument back to the beginning of the twentieth century when tenure was not an issue of academic freedom. There was a time, the author writes, when most colleges were religious institutions. Denominations provided the monies needed, but the source of funding moved to the business community. This new "Research University" was to "pursue knowledge free from any 'proprietary' strictures." Their goal was no longer to make students better citizens but to use their expertise to improve society itself. The sacred calf became the professors' "own scientific conscience." Schaefer Riley appeals to common sense in that , yes, some faculty positions do need a certain amount of academic freedom to challenge accepted thought but applying that to every class, particularly in an age of many mindless class subjects, enters an entirely different arena of thought. She writes that this is why there's no such thing as 'corporate-manager freedom' or 'shoe-salesman freedom' or "dermatologist freedom... ' "  She also opines that high schools do not teach with the effectiveness that they once did and it now requires a college education to receive what was once a basic high school education. The individual may prosper in this system but civilization does not. Whereas once the institutions were guided by religious denominations, we now have the same proprietary guidance, only now it comes from whoever, or whatever funds the institutions, the liberal Ford Foundation, which the author describes as "the Ford gravy train,' being one of the most notable.  She describes how it is not unusual for, for example drug companies, to prohibit the publishing of raw research data.  Generally those funding the institutions want their philosophies espoused at the lectern. The author comments on the growing list of disciplines such as ethnic, cultural and gender studies" and concludes that "projects that are not strictly academic are not deserving of academic protections." She quotes here another who says that "political correctness represented the return of proprietary universities." She concludes on the topic of abolishing tenure that "When professors are engaged in imparting basic literary skills, or even classes on how to cook or how to start a business, there is no reason why their academic freedom must be protected."  The author believes that "there is no question" that "tenure encourages an overabundance of publishing, and this publishing does little for the undergraduate student who is competing for a professor's time." She brings up an interesting point that may influence the debate on the quality of teaching: If education is constantly changing, why concentrate on traditional learning when it may be so different in the future? Are professors today therefore always trying to expound on something novel and does this help or hurt the undergraduate? Schaefer Riley points out that some schools are indeed trying to focus on the teaching ability of professors they are hiring but this is anything but a trend. She takes on the obsession with College and University rankings. Hers is not the first criticisms that rankings have had for it has been recognized for some time that there are serious problems with the criteria used selecting the top schools. I have a little personal history to share on this topic for I was very involved in our son's college choice, to the point of going through the core curriculum of a masters degree program in Higher Education. I won't name the school but there is a small college that is simply outstanding in everything a college should be. It demands rigorous study in a curriculum that has not been tainted by the politically correct, diversity driven courses of study that have plagued our higher education system. There is a strong Christian atmosphere on campus and it is consequently extremely hard to get into. U. S. News rankings acknowledged the college's excellence. Seems like this might be an argument against the criticisms of the college rankings, doesn't it? Well, as I saw these results framed over glass and hanging all over the administrative offices, I simply shook my head for they should have known that this media does not like the content of what is being taught there, nor the pursuit of truth and that these glowing reports may not last. Sure enough the college was put into a different category where the same statistics did not measure up as well. This, one of the finest colleges in this nation, is now merely a "best buy." The author spends a good bit of time on the tenured life as compared to that of the adjunct professor and we hear from both sides of this issue but the essence of the debate is that the tenured system does not provide a sufficiently improved education to counter the problems it creates and the inequality of opportunity it presents. The author adds her opinion here : "Aside from the hypocrisy of academics who claim concern for society's marginalized while ignoring the lower classes in their midst in what many would deem the unfair treatment of their labor force, is there any compelling reason  that universities-as self-interested as any institution-should reconsider their employment policies? Why not staff classes entirely with adjunct labor? Why not give customers the same product essentially at lower cost?" The author then takes on the issue of unions in higher education. They are smaller than the typical auto workers union and therefore get less economic headlines but "their effects are growing." She gives a history of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP.)  The adjuncts sought help with their plight against the tenured through unionization while the unions in turn were looking for growth in professional fields. Most professors are state employees and in 2010, for the first time state employees became the majority in American unions. The author delves in the many diverse problems and different situations that this issue has evolved into from state to state and region to region. She also describes the Supreme Court ruling where unionization was barred from private colleges. Ultimately, according to the author, the tenure system discriminates against the economic power of the adjunct community which in turn, turns to unions. The author believes that higher education could even get worse if the tenured system is replaced by the union system and writes that sensible answers must be found. Schaefer Riley moves then into politics and it's no surprise that the university system is solidly in the Obama corner. She concludes her book with the issue of the book's subtitle And Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For, what most people would have bought the book for, but its her final words before the Afterward that should resonate with the reader of a blog such as mine: "In order for schools to experiment with new models, to institute the real changes that need to take place, the faculty will have to get on board. Administrators-to the extent they want to-cannot make these changes happen. It's not because they are spineless bureaucrats. It's because they have no power. The boards of trustees-which are supposed to be backing the administration-are not paying attention. And the cries of parents and students will be heeded only so much. The balance of power at universities needs to be restored. The most certain way of doing that is by eliminating tenure." This is a microcosm of the problem we have in America. The desires of the people, and the power of their representatives, have been usurped by those elites who pad their own wagon while claiming to be laboring for the disadvantaged who are anything but helped by their schemes.