That's literally the name of the legislation sponsored by 22 Republicans that would end tenure going forward, replacing it with 5-year-contracts. (At least some lawyers explained to them that revoking tenure for existing faculty would be a breach of contract!) It would also require all faculty (except in graduate-only departments, like law schools or medical schools) to each 2 courses each semester, which is not the norm in the natural sciences, where most faculty run labs.
When Thatcher eliminated tenure at the universities in the UK in the late 1980, Parliament enacted a law protecting academic freedom. Don't expect that to happen in the South Carolina case, although faculty at public universities could still assert a constitutional right to academic freedom. The argument against eliminating tenure that seems to succeed most often with legislatures is cost and competitiveness: tenure is important non-monetary compensation for faculty, and it will be hard to recruit them without paying them a lot more if the state schools do not offer tenure.
That's the argument, anyway. As a German philosopher and economist in the 19th-century observed, capitalism generally depends on a large "reserve army" of unemployed or underemployed labor, and the modern American academy has done a spectacular job over-producing PhDs who now constitute such a "reserve army." Under those circumstances, does anyone really doubt that a state university will not be able to find qualified individuals willing to take a five-year contract position? And if other states follow suit (they will), then the competitive disadvantage will decline further.
Like the attack on tenure in Georgia, these are the proverbial "canaries in the coal mine" of what lies ahead.
Recent Comments