From the VC: Polarised views in tenure debate

Tenure is an issue which is not about to go away. On May 27, the Financial Review's editorial asked, "Why persist with academic tenure when the old sureties have been taken away from the rest of the white-collar workforce?" In recent weeks, we have also seen in The Canberra Times the opposing views of Professor Peter Doherty and Dr Geoff Davies, of the ANU, on the issue.

Arguments for and against will be familiar to most readers. The main argument for tenure is that it is necessary to preserve academic freedom; principally to voice opinions and undertake research not popular with political, bureaucratic and business interests. However, Geoff Davies has recently advanced the interesting idea that the principal argument for tenure is that academics need protection from each other.

I have previously put the pragmatic argument that, as long as tenure is offered by the top universities in Australia and elsewhere, the ANU could not expect to attract and retain its stellar academic talents without it.

Those opposed to tenure largely point to it being an impediment to institutional flexibility; to the ability to shift resources from low to high academic priorities and to deal with unsatisfactorily performing staff. The argument is also made that tenure often ties a department to a particular set of ideas and intellectual currency for many more years than is healthy. Some critics suggest that the most powerful muzzle on free expression of ideas is the tenure track appointment, where young staff are loathe to offend potential judges.

In the US, the tenure debate is highly polarised and fuelled more by emotion than rational argument. More thoughtful contributors are acutely aware that, outside of the universities, tenure is widely regarded as protection from the accountability and productivity required of other workers.

However, useful things are coming out of the debate. In particular, there is a growing voice that academic freedom and tenure can and should be uncoupled. Part of this stems from the view that the increasing numbers of non-tenured staff should have the same protection of academic freedom as their tenured colleagues. Well thought out mechanisms for doing this are now being articulated.

There is also increasing receptiveness to a greater variety of terms of employment of mutual benefit to staff and institutions. Most significant are non-tenured posts which still offer opportunity for promotion. This is something which we have had in the Institute of Advanced Studies for some time.

The most interesting views emphasise the need to focus on objectives, rather than on tenure itself. Proponents argue the important things are the capacity to reallocate academic staff positions between departments, fair and effective performance reviews, and effective procedures to maintain academic freedom.

These are things which will surface in our next round of enterprise bargaining. However, new modes of academic employment will best emerge through open debate within schools, faculties and the academic boards. We have made real progress in this area in recent years but we risk stalling if we limit our vision to the question of tenure per se.

There is one option of which I am not yet able to form an opinion. Should we simply make all appointments at, say, Level B and above indefinite, subject to well-defined, peer-dominated, periodic review, and, at the same time, make explicit provision for maintenance of academic freedom?

Deane Terrell