Higher Education and Tenure

Tenure Process Higher education system in the United States is dominated by tenure process, which has continued to be a source of controversy when examining the American education system. The controversy associated with tenure within higher education is attributable to the belief that the process generates lazy professionals who are interested in attending conferences and creating unreadable research (Mcpherson & Schapiro, n.d.). Such professionals do not focus on teaching and generating practical insights, which is crucial in higher education.

Therefore, this issue requires the identification of a suitable measure to address it in order to enhance the quality of higher education in the country. This process requires examining the background of the tenure process and challenges associated with it. Background of the Tenure Process The tenure process is one of the dominant aspect/features of higher education in the United States.

This process can be described as a basic concept through which faculty members that have served for a sufficient period of apprenticeship should enjoy security in their positions and can only be removed only for reasonably adequate cause (Cameron, 2010). The tenure system or process was entrenched within America's higher education system to develop a contractual relationship between a college/university and the professor. Based on this system, the contractual relationship is enforceable in a court of law.

This essentially implies that the tenure process was adopted in attempts to protect faculty members from the opinion or wishes of the academic institution's administration, students, and faculty. While the practice of ensuring the safety and job security of scholars in their academic pursuits can be traced back to as early as 1158, the adoption of and significant changes to the tenure system/process in the United States took place in the aftermath of the Second World War.

As returning soldiers descended upon American universities and colleges, there was a quick expansion of these institutions and a severe shortage of professors. As a result, higher education institutions started providing formal tenure to professors in order to overcome the problem of shortage of scholars, which in turn contributed to increase in tenure issuances. In the 1950s, the government compelled many state employees to take loyalty oaths, which implied that tenure was not a safeguard from termination in such instances.

During this period professors were increasingly dismissed on the basis of their political views (Savage, n.d.). However, governmental interference in professors' political views diminished in the 1960s as professors supported the anti-war movement (Cameron, 2010). The tenure system's landscape changed in 1972 following the Supreme Court's decisions in Board of Regents of State College v. Roth and Perry v. Sindermann. In these cases, the Court ruled that if the employment of a tenured professor is terminated, he/she will be entitled to due process.

This will entail the right to appear individually in a hearing, the right to evaluate evidence and respond to allegations, and the right to legal counsel (Cameron, 2010). In the 1980s and 1990s, some colleges and universities tried to re-assess the tenure process as a group of tenured professors who were hired to teach baby-boomers were nearing retirement. Regardless of these and other attempts, tenured faculty members are not required to retire on the basis of their age as tenure system remains an important feature of modern higher education.

Current States of the Tenure Process As previously mentioned, tenure process/system remains an important aspect of today's higher education system. In the past few years, the process has generated controversy with regards to its effectiveness in enhancing the quality of higher education while taking care of faculty members. Young professors and administrators have continued to criticize this process as the number of tenure issuances and tenured-positions in higher education continue to decrease significantly.

Young professors and administrators oppose the tenure process on the premise that it's an unfair hindrance towards full-time or tenured employment because tenured scholars remain in their positions way past their retirement age. They also argue that tenured positions are progressively more difficult to obtain while the criteria for hiring professors to such positions are unclear. In essence, the tenure system/process is usually irrational and inequitable because of loosely entrenched criteria of hiring.

On the other hand, college and university administrators criticize the tenure process on the premise that it's very expensive to maintain a tenured faculty (Cameron, 2010). McPherson & Schapiro (n.d.) state that controversies and criticisms regarding the tenure system seemingly focus on concerns on the productivity and commitment of tenured faculty in teaching. Some critics of this process have argued that it contributes to the emergence of a lazy faculty that is more interested in creating unreadable research and attending conferences instead of focusing on teaching and developing practical insights.

Tenured professors are seemingly not focused and committed to teaching because they no longer have similar incentives to invest in long-term reputation. The challenge associated with the tenure process in America's higher education system emerges from concerns regarding the steady increase in the costs of higher education. These concerns are centered on the value that students and taxpayers get from supporting public institutions of higher learning.

These concerns continue to emerge despite the fact that college and university professors view tenure process as a system that provides vital benefits to higher learning institutions and the society. In some cases, professors have argued that the tenure process is the principal reason for the success of higher education system in the United States (Savage, n.d.).

Some of the benefits provided by this process as claimed by professors include turning faculty members into institutional stakeholders, providing incentives for maintenance of high standards, and improving educational contributions and outcomes (Savage, n.d.). Nonetheless, these professors concur that the tenure process is not imperfect since it comprises features that need to be addressed to enhance the overall higher education system.

Addressing the Challenges of Tenure Process Despite the differences in arguments regarding the necessity and effectiveness of tenure process, stakeholders in the higher education system in the United States concur that there is need to address some aspects of this process. Addressing the challenges of tenure process within higher education will help deal with its controversies and ensure it's aligned with current conditions in the society and academic environment. Additionally, addressing these challenges will help address the current crossroad in America's higher education system.

One of the ways through which challenges of tenure process can be addressed is through creating teaching-intensive tenure-track positions (Bernstein & Kezar, 2016). Even though higher education system in the country has experienced several changes due to various factors, the tenure process has remained the same. While this conventional tenure model has promoted academic values and freedom in higher learning, it is not necessarily designed to support or enhance student learning. The creation of teaching-intensive tenure-track positions will help transform the tenure model to support and enhance student learning.

In this case, higher education committees would consider excellence in teaching as a criterion for granting tenure to professors. Excellence in teaching will be evaluated through student assessments, teaching awards, and peer review. Therefore, tenure decisions for professors would be made primarily on their excellence in teaching with minimal or no regard of engagement in research. The second probable means of addressing the challenges of the tenure process within higher education is replacing the conventional model with a limited tenure.

In this case, faculty members would be offered limited tenure for a fixed period such as 5 or 10 years. Additionally, the limited tenure would then be renewable upon expiry based on conditions set in the agreement. One of the conditions that would make a professor eligible for renewal of a limited tenure is excellence in teaching. The case for a limited tenure rather than the traditional model that provides lifetime guarantees is an outdated concept that focuses on protecting academic freedom of scholars at the expense of teaching (Bernstein &.