Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Yesterday's post from the anonymous law school dean recommending that Erwin Chemerinsky abolish tenure at UC-Irvine attracted a lot of attention, including a piece in the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, Should Law Schools Abolish Tenure?, which received over 100 comments. Among the more interesting comments:
- "Could not agree more - end the tyranny of the lame and unaccountable! Inject the classroom with the rule that the rest of the world lives by - accountability and reward for performance!"
- "Tenure is not the problem — the lack of a meaningful post-tenure review is the problem. Protection against political interference (e.g., tenure) should not be protection against laziness or incompetence. When post-tenure review is taken seriously, and has consequences, then no one should complain about a practice (tenure) that promotes innovation and bold inquiry."
- “'Those who deserve tenure don’t need it. Those who need tenure don’t deserve it.' Hard to find a truer statement than that. I would say at least 75% of my professors did not deserve tenure."
- "Abolishing tenure would be a collossal mistake. One has to look no further than the recent Chemerinsky affair to understand that academic freedoms, even for scholars who publish like mad, are always under threat. Left or Right, it doesn’t matter - tenure protects those who’ve ascended to a level where their voices can be heard from those who’d seek to silence them."