Teaching Without Tenure: Policies and Practices for a New Era

by Diane Calabrese THE MESSENGERS DIFFER. But the message is the same. Most doctoral recipients that aspire to tenure-track, full-time faculty positions will never find them. In mid- January, the Pew Charitable Trusts released the results of a study it funded, a study that illuminates the quantitative dimensions of life after graduate studies. As currently configured, the U.S. higher education sector employs almost half of all U.S. faculty members as part-timers. (See the Pew report, "At Cross Purposes: What the experiences of today's doctoral students reveal about doctoral education," at www.phd-survey.org.) In fact, according to Dr. Roger G. Baldwin and Dr. Jay L. Chronister, the authors of Teaching Without Tenure, Policies and Practices for a New Era (The Johns Hopkins University Press), "in the fall of 1995, about 52 percent of full-time faculty were tenured" (page 23). Thus, about one in four faculty members across the nation works full-time and has tenure. But Dr. Baldwin, a professor of education at the College of William and Mary, and Dr. Chronister, a professor of education, emeritus, at the University of Virginia, offer no hope of constancy in higher education. And should any position seeker still need a harsh reminder to be set straight, the first line of the "Introduction" to the book advises, "Higher education institutions are no longer cozy sanctuaries" Teaching Without Tenure is the culmination of a research study by the authors. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Chronister wanted to understand the professional experience of those who teach without tenure. To make their data gathering manageable, they restricted their study to full-time employees at institutions that award a baccalaureate, or baccalaureate and advanced degrees. Thus, anyone looking for insight into how part-timers gluing together several positions make a go of it--financially, emotionally or socially--should not look to this book. Even so, part-time faculty members will resonate with many of the anecdotal accounts of full-time faculty who also work without the knowledge of whether they will be reemployed by their institution in the next semester. Methodology used in the research study is outlined clearly. Questionnaires were sent to a "cross-section of U.S. higher education institutions." The institutions were queried about their hiring policies and their employment documents were obtained and reviewed. Site visits were made to twelve institutions (representing all types in the study) to interview administrators and faculty members. Questionnaires and site interview questions are included as appendices. Read against the backdrop of the contemporary marketplace, the composition Teaching Without Tenure takes on the quality of fugue. After all, the constituents of higher education are fighting each day to keep their jobs. Parents and students, alumni and taxpayers live a world where pink slips swirl and safety nets are few. Monetary limitations are everywhere. In a societal context, tenure looks otherworldly, or even antiquated. "In a time of financial constraints and dynamic change, the employment of full-time non-tenure-eligible faculty gives institutions a flexibility not provided by the continued tenuring of faculty," write the authors (page 23). We are not surprised to read in the penultimate chapter about a "best practices model," or to turn to the last chapter (7) and find it titled "An Action Agenda." The lexicon of the corporate sector now permeates higher education. What of the intervening pages, those that sift through the comments of non-tenure-eligible faculty and the administrators to whom they report? There is a relatively balanced mix of individuals with laments and optimistic people who report they shunned tenure, it did not elude them. Some respondents have consented to being named in print. Others are anonymous. An encouraging note: Ninety-three percent of the institutions surveyed by the authors offer full-time faculty the same fringe benefits whether they hold tenure or not. But the discrepancies in teaching assignments (non-tenure-eligible are more often assigned to introductory courses), career ladders (typically, there are none for the tenure ineligible), research (no time for it), and professional status (there is systematic exclusion from decisions about policy, curriculum, etc.) Not surprisingly, the "Action Agenda" the authors propose would redress the complaints of the tenure ineligible. Also predictable is the call for institutions to continue to have the flexibility they need. Essentially, the Agenda would bring people who work now within a "marginalized" model into more acceptable "integrated" or "alternative career track" models, which do exist already in a few institutions. A particularly sour point in the text is the authors' use of the term "tenure-track wannabes" (page 105). Their editor should have saved them from disparaging people whose goals are laudable but perhaps, unattainable, with what constitutes a demeaning throwaway word. Certainly, no one calls a creative businessperson who may or may not realize financial success with a start-up a "business owner wannabe." We call him or her an entrepreneur. (An equally spirited appellation should be developed for those who love to teach and to do research and to capitalize on the synergy between the two endeavors. Would it be so wrong to reclaim the mantle of "scholar?") Similarly, the discovery that "Teachers without a doctorate are generally more satisfied with their working conditions than teachers with a doctorate..." (page 101)--except in the category of salary--confirms more than it denies. Teaching at an institution of higher education without a doctorate stands as a coup d'etat. There is reason for the individuals without doctorates to be more sanguine, especially if they never imagined themselves as teacher-scholars, invigorating their lectures thanks to their intimate, ongoing tie to research. They have managed to achieve parity without meeting the traditional standards set for others. The Jan. 31 issue of The Wall Street Journal carries a page B1 story titled "U.S. Is Inclined To Lift Aid Ban For Web Studies." If the ban is removed, students will be able to use federal aid to pay for courses from institutions that provide more than half their courses--in some cases all their courses--via distance learning. The implications for bricks and mortar institutions are enormous, contributing to more of the "organizational uncertainty" Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Chronister warn we should expect in the future. In short, the authors conclude the decline in tenure-eligible-faculty slots is not an aberration. They suggest "treating nontraditional faculty off the tenure track as first-class members of the academic community" (page 192) is a remedy that would promote harmony and make the nontenure eligible positions desirable. It is a lovely sentiment, but not much more. With budgets so tight (and often shrinking in real dollars adjusted for inflation) and the economy so uncertain, the only way for institutions to offer more to tenure ineligible faculty is to offer less to tenured and tenure-eligible faculty. Unless, the groves of academe have suddenly been repopulated with altruists, there is no reason to expect a change in the status quo. Those who have tenure will want to keep it, and everyone who has dreamed of the freedom it provides will want to get it.