EDITORIAL: Going too far

The tenure system isn'tThe tenure system isn'tperfect, but changes proposedThe tenure system isn'tperfect, but changes proposedat the University of MinnesotaThe tenure system isn'tperfect, but changes proposedat the University of Minnesotaare not the answer. But the revisions Minnesota administrators are considering -- including unlimited post-tenure review -- are too drastic. If instituted, they could permanently destroy academe's special function as an incubator for the avant garde in social, political and scientific theory. As it stands, the tenure system is clearly flawed. It provides the ultimate in job security to poor teachers who bring in large research grants and does a tremendous disservice to the students who must endure their uninspired lectures. And at Penn, it has resulted in the loss of superior teachers like former assistant professors Gregg Camfield (English), George Boyajian (Geology) and Graham Walker (Political Science). Tenure was designed to insulate scholars with unpopular or radical views or credentials. Tenure permits these new ideas to be studied and debated by other academics and the public, even if they are ultimately rejected. And this system makes sense; most alterations and advances in this country's educational system have started as crazy notions espoused by someone with the financial backing and guts to give them a trial run. As a public institution, Minnesota must be accountable to state legislators, who are not often receptive to the needs and pleas of higher education. But in its effort to cut costs by reforming tenure, Minnesota might find itself losing talented young minds to private institutions like Penn, which offer the guarantee and security of tenure, regardless of its present shortcomings.