And I’m not sure that tenure—at least at the university level—impedes the free market, for what it’s worth. Tenure is a benefit that has been negotiated for; there is no law that requires universities to offer tenure.

And I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Frankly, I’m surprised that there haven’t been more violent incidents where tenure is at stake, especially when you think of the kind of people we all know who — how to put this? — have devoted themselves more to developing their particular academic genius than to developing social and coping skills.

But if one is denied tenure at a less-prestigious school, it could severely affect one’s chances at finding work elsewhere. I know that at some schools, the individual’s tenure review occurs one year before her contract expires, thus giving the person a year to find another job while still working.

Of course, the academic job market in general is tremendously competitive and many people with PhDs are unable to find work anywhere. If denied tenure, she is thrown right back into the ultra-competitive job market, and having a tenure-denial on her record (again, depending on the previous place of employment) could indeed hurt her chances against recently-minted PhDs or other experienced professors looking to move elsewhere.

Does a decision against tenure mean “not this year” or “never, at this institution”? If you’re denied tenure, does your employment continue, but without the security of tenure? If you’re denied tenure at one institution, how does that affect the likelihood of your being employed at another institution?

I’m trying to understand whether the tension over being denied tenure is an understandable embarrassment and delay in a career path, or whether it’s an automatic career ender. If it’s an ender, it’s amazing that more violence hasn’t occurred.

Brilliant. Glad to know you are protecting knowledge for the rest of us.

For the most part, unless he or she does something really egregious, the profitable employee will keep his or her job, regardless of what he or she says or believes.

Right, just like academics. For the most part, unless they do something really egregious they keep their jobs too. Like I said, I get the argument for tenure, I just find it somewhat ironic that some of the same people most fervent in their support of academic freedom work the hardest to shut down unpopular speech that they disagree with. I’m not thinking of anyone here.

While some academics make money off of their creations, this is usually not folks in the humanities and social sciences, the people usually making the controversial claims. Few political philosophers or religious studies scholars are getting rich because of tenure.

I had the case in mind of some professor in Colorado, (Churchill ?) I think Bolder, that said something most people would think very over the top, as in stupid.

It seems like, and I could have this all wrong, that the university was not going to do much about it, until Bill O’Reilly got hold of it.

At that time, felling they (university) had the support of the public on their side, decided to remove him from the school. I am sure the professor sued to try and keep his job, I do not remember hearing the final outcome of it all.

I am sure had the professor been in the right, someone like O’Reilly would have taken his side and I would like to think, the university would have backed down.

Bank for the buck, simply is a way of saying, how can we get the best education for our kids with the least amount of money spent. I have always thought the free enterprise system makes that happen. I would think tenure stands in the way of free market conditions, impeding such from happening.

I found your comment to the contrary interesting. I have heard of professors that make more money doing things in the private sector than they do from the salary paid by the university. Perhaps I am wrong about this.
I
By the way, I am sure you are a great teacher.