Similar to ERIC, the Chronicle of Higher Education website provides links to many articles and studies concerning tenure and post-tenure review on both sides of the issue. The vast majority of these articles were produced by the Chronicle itself, for its print and online subscribers. Given that most of the subscribers to the Chronicle are almost certainly employed in the realm of higher education, the balanced views presented by the collection of articles as a whole is perhaps unsurprising given a definite desire not to alienate readership. Though there are some very strong opinions on both sides represented in the articles and information found on the Chronicle website, there is nothing especially inflammatory or groundbreaking in any of the articles. Best used a source for recent developments in the tenure issue.
ACE (2009). "Post-Tenure Review." American council on education. Accessed 8
September 2009. http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
Though the American Council on Education does not have an official stance on the issue of tenure or post tenure review, a survey of its members reveals support -- though not overwhelmingly -- for the tenure system as it now stands in most institutions. The Council does acknowledge problems maintaining the vitality of instructors who have achieved tenure, echoing one of the primary arguments against the practice of tenure, but most of the articles available on the site suggest remedies for the problems inherent to tenure situations rather than advocating the dissolution of such programs. The site is not very well organized, and it can be difficult to find articles of high relevancy through quick searches, but the information once found is invaluable.
Like many of the other websites dedicated to higher education, the majority of the information available at the Inside Higher Ed website largely consists of links to external sites and articles concerning the issue of post-tenure review and tenure in general. There does appear to be an emphasis on personal opinions, including several links to blogs by professors, administrators, and others connected to the world of higher education. This makes for a somewhat more interesting read than many other resources, and allows one to see the human and personal side of the debate that is often lost amid the larger social and financial issues that arise in the debate surrounding tenure and post-tenure reviews. It also, however, makes some of the points found on this website less directly relevant to a large examination and discussion of the tenure predicament.
ARL. (2009). "Tenure." Association of research libraries. Accessed 8 September 2009.
Though tenure and post-tenure reviews are usually thought of in terms of professors and certain administrative positions, the issue of tenure for librarians has also been receiving increased attention of late. The Association of Research Libraries is generally for extending the same protections and benefits enjoyed by professors in universities with tenure programs to librarians in these institutions, though they do not really make it clear whether or not tenure -- or post-tenure reviews -- is approved of overall, or if the Association merely believes that librarians deserve equal treatment (i.e. "if tenure exists, we should get it, too"). The articles and links found on the website are more concerned with how tenure -- and the lack thereof -- could affect libraries and librarians rather than with the overall ethicality of tenure programs.
APSA (2009). "Post-Tenure Review Analyzed." The American political science association. Accessed 8 September 2009.
Though this website does address the issue of post-tenure review both more specifically and more comprehensively than many other sites, it does nto provide a wide range of opinions or an abundance of resources. The description of various forms of post-tenure review and real world cases of their application is very useful for coming to an understanding of such reviews and how they are and will continue to alter tenured positions and higher education in general, but the obvious professorial bias in the site makes some of the conclusions and assertions drawn rather suspect. Excellent for providing an overview of ideas and suggesting avenues of future research.