Skip to Main Content

Tenure: A Communal Privilege For Service, Not an Individual Privilege For Research

by Steven Kessler

Abstract 

Tenure is commonly understood as a privilege earned by individuals in higher education guaranteeing a lifetime appointment barring gross negligence. To individuals outside of higher education, the tenure process is less clear. Contemporary tenure is earned today largely for research and teaching with the heaviest emphasis on research. The third leg of tenure, service, is often neglected or discouraged in the rewards structure. While this information is widely known in higher education, the irony of this system is not. This paper aims to explore higher education’s historical roots as a medieval corporation in explaining the origins of tenure. Tenure originally came to higher education as a corporate entity because of the service it performed to its community, whether philological and religious, or vocational. The rights and privileges that came with tenure were endowed to higher education as corporate communities first which then gave the individual rights. This paper explores contemporary tenure in higher education, the socio-political factors that lead to the dissolution of the corporate community, including the French Revolution, the period in American higher education where research became the norm, and the implications for today.

Introduction

Tenure in American higher education is a guaranteed lifetime appointment for faculty members baring gross misconduct or moral turpitude (Huer, 1991, p. 6). Whicker, Kronenfeld, and Stricker (1993) referred to tenure as a three-legged milk-stool, consisting of research, teaching and service, however, “When they are evaluated . . . as candidates for promotion, the evaluation is made principally in terms of their research contributions to their disciplines” (Caplow & McGee, 1958, p. 82). While teaching and research are almost universally held as the foundations for the merit of tenure, Bok (2013) referred to service in the role of the academic profession as, “service” (p. 30). Bok’s use of quotation marks around the word service indicated that he feels it is a subordinate duty of the university and that not all institutions share in this mission. Service is ill-defined, not encouraged in the reward process, and possibly burdensome to faculty members.

 

But what is service? A clear definition of service is not necessarily available. O’Meara (2002) defined it as, “work by faculty members based on their scholarly expertise and contribution to the mission of the institution” (p. 8). Ward (2005), in Higher Education for the Public Good: Emerging Voices From a National Movement, said, “the notion of service on many campuses today has come to mean committee work that supports the functioning of the campus, a definition that has been to the detriment of campus efforts to connect more external audiences” (p. 218). Ward also said:

Service viewed narrowly as committee work tends to go unrewarded. It’s become a taken-for-granted aspect of faculty work. Historically, the service role of faculty was (and is) much more expansive. Service, depending on time and place, can mean service to the profession, service to the community, service to the institution, service to the public     sector, service to the private sector, or service to the society in general. (pp. 218-19)

Ward’s understanding of the role of service is closer akin to the pith of this paper: faculty service is unrewarded in general and is subordinate to research and teaching in the evaluation for tenure and promotion.

Ward (2005) articulated well that despite the fact that one can make the argument that both teaching and research are possible elements of contributing to the institutional mission (O’Meara, 2002) or “supports the functioning of the campus” (Keazar, Chambers, Burkhardt, & Associates, 2005, p. 218), teaching accomplishes this only, “passively” (Ward, 2005, p. 219) and, “A majority of research generated by faculty in academe, however, is conducted with the interests of furthering a particular discipline and is focused on meeting internal needs for knowledge production (and promotion and tenure)” (Ward, 2005, p. 221). The overlap of the three legs of tenure are not militating appositely with service. Teaching and research are primarily examined and rewarded, yet they do not serve institutional interests as directly as service.

Jaeger and Thornton (2006) agree with both Bok and Ward’s assessment of service and its importance in the role of tenure. They found that faculty view service largely unimportant in the tenure and promotion process (35%) (p. 353), and that, “For most faculty, public service is not conveyed as important in the reappointment, promotion and tenure process” (p. 353). Additionally, “Socialization of faculty to devalue public service work, especially during the tenure process, is a consistent message across faculty” (p. 353).

The ambiguity of service’s definition and its apparent lack of recognition in the tenure and promotion process create an environment where service is to be guarded against and not enthusiastically engaged in. This idea is ironic and interesting. Higher education in America originally admitted the children of ministers (and the wealthy) to educate them and prepare them to serve their communities (Lucas, 1994; Thelin, 2004). This paper details when these contemporary standards began to emerge and when higher education begin to place research and teaching above service analogously to a negative externality. The next section details the emergence of teaching and research at the expense of the service leg of the milk stool in American higher education.

Higher Education Standardizes Research Norms

Boyer (1990) contends that the research movement in American Higher Education first came at the urging of George Ticknor and Edward Everett, two people who studied in Germany and desired to bring the German research model back to America (p. 8). This shift in emphasis took root, albeit slowly, and eventually, “By the late 19th century, the advancement of knowledge through research had taken firm root in American higher education” (p. 9). From here, the grip of research as the norm for higher education took place. Teaching as a foundational component of faculty workload has consistently been an important component of tenure and promotion, but the rise of research can clearly be traced to the emergence of national funding for science post World War II. With significant public investment in science through the Department of Defense, the formation of the National Science Foundation and the rise of medical research funding via the National Institute of Health, research activity has become the key measured component of an academic career in the last 65 years (Lucas, 1994; Thelin, 2004).

Caplow and McGee (1958) established through faculty survey that faculty production is synonymous with research and publication even though faculty was hired as teachers. The idea of scholarship was established as meaning research and publication at the expense of other faculty priorities, particularly teaching and service (Boyer, 1990). Boyer (1990) referenced Caplow and McGee’s (1958) assertion that WWII drastically changed the academic profession more than anything before it. Nisbet (1971) concurred with this notion, saying:

I firmly believe that in direct grants from government and foundation to individual members of university faculties, or to small company-like groups of faculty members. . . and other essentially capitalistic enterprises with the academic community to be the single most powerful agent of change that we can find in the university’s long history. (pp. 72-73)

He used both “higher capitalism” and “academic capitalism” in his description of this concept (Nisbet, 1971, p. 71, 73). Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) defined academic capitalism as, “the involvement of colleges and faculty in market-like behaviors and [sic] has become a key feature of higher education in the United States” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 37). The academic capitalism model changed the landscape of higher education. Formerly, professors were appointed, a similar tradition to feudal knighthood, but academic capitalism’s appearance changed the nature of the appointments to hirings (Nisbet, 1971, p. 102). Professors used to consider their profession with the university; they were simply a part of the university and nothing else (Nisbet, 1971, p. 106). Once the forces that gave rise to academic capitalism changed the notion of the university, the individual field the professor worked in was now his or her profession: “Very different was the situation once one’s profession as a chemist, political scientist and mathematician took priority” (Nisbet, 1971, p. 106). 

This transformation also individualized higher education. Schneider (2005), in Higher Education for the Public Good, said, “The thrust of the twentieth-century approach to liberal education was highly individualistic, both in principle and in practice. . . . liberal education. . . sought to help each student maximize his or her individual potential” (p. 133). He corroborated Nisbet (1971) when he said, “As critics observed, the twentieth-century curriculum implicitly envisioned each learner as a separate and unencumbered self” (p. 134). As academic capitalism eroded community in the university and highly individualized it, academic capitalism also pushed the ideas of service to the background.

Several of the scholars previously mentioned now claim that service is not valued in tenure promotion. Ask any faculty member today and he or she will tell you the same, even without formal assessment and empirical data to back the claim up. Additionally, faculty socialization is a highly individualized process.

Individual socialization occurs when individuals are processed in singular fashion. By and large, tenure-track faculty participate in individual socialization. Institution-wide activities usually do not take place, and faculty are isolated within their departments. The department rather than the college or institution becomes the locus of identity. (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996, p. 38)

Faculty are brought into higher education as individuals and work towards tenure as individuals. The effects of this individual socialization upon entry remain with faculty as they progress through their contracts and then earn tenure. “Since a tenure system produces a faculty with great individual autonomy, it contributes to keeping the university a sort of ‘cottage industry,’ a loosely constructed agglomeration of individuals who do their work in substantial independence from one another” (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999, p. 96).

Faculty collaboration relative to tenure is also not a strongly institutionalized as the individual is highly favored.

The existence of tenure does not preclude reorganizing faculty work to make it more collaborative but it certainly makes it more complicated, since individual faculty have substantial power to veto any arrangement they do not perceive as making them immediately better off. (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999, p. 97)

Essentially, what this leaves us with is our contemporary university system: coming in as individuals, behaving as individuals, and ultimately, earning tenure as individuals. Nisbet (1971) lamented the change and the state of affairs. Prior to these changes, higher education was more communal and corporate (in the feudal sense of the word corporate, i.e. community focused, cooperative, fraternal). Tenure served not as an individual reward, but as a communal privilege to higher education institutions for their service. The next section delineates the historical origins of tenure and higher education’s medieval roots as a corporation. It then details the effect of the French Revolution on the erosion of the corporate community and how that highly individualized the occidental world. To understand the present we need to clearly see the historic tenant upon which the idea of tenure was framed. The corporate and medieval notion of tenure existed differently in days of yore than today. Understanding the true rationale for tenure, as viewed through the medieval lens, can facilitate a greater desire for service in higher education today.

Higher Education as a Corporation

From their initial inception, historically speaking, universities were corporations (Norton, 1909). “Beginning with the year 1158 a long series of immunities, liberties, and exemptions was bestowed by State and Church upon masters and students as a class, and upon universities as corporations” (Norton, 1909, p. 80). Some of these exceptions given to universities as corporations were, “Masters and scholars . . . often taken under the special protection of the sovereign” (Norton, 1909, p. 80), they were also, “exempted from taxation and military service; and most important of all, they were placed under the jurisdiction of special courts, in which alone they could be tried” (Norton, 1909, p. 80). These privileges enabled university members to live in “unusual liberty and security” (Norton, 1909, p. 81). These privileges were given either by kings and various sovereigns and papal authorities (Norton, 1909, p. 81). The idea of academic life has vestiges in the corporations of feudal universities that granted “unusual liberty and security” as the foundation for tenure and academic freedom as we know it today (Norton, 1909, p. 81).

In England, the occupation of the land under which the privilege of liberty and security was applied was called tenure: “The primary method in which such power was acquired was via the granting of landholdings from the sovereign lord. The mode of holding or occupying land from the sovereign lord became known as ‘tenure’” (Hepburn, 2005, p. 55). The concept of tenure in higher education is derived from the tenure associated with holding or occupying land as part of a feudal corporation. Possession of this land signified great importance: “land was regarded as the source of all privilege and the basis of civil rank. . . .  land became a valuable commodity, and a tenurial grant conferred social prestige and acceptance” (Hepburn, 2005, p. 56).

The driving force behind what made something worthy of tenurial land holding was ecclesiastical. “Yet behind all variety medieval thinkers generally pictured a social world rightly structured on categories reflecting a divine plan” (Kauper, 2009, p. 137). The university’s place for warranting tenure landholding arose because, “They had long applied to certain vocations the term ordo, meaning a division of society that was sacred in that God desired its existence and that God had ordained its appropriate labor as essential for human society” (Kaueper, 2009, p. 137). Ordo, “came to denote a privileged body, isolated from the remainder of society, invested with particular responsibilities, whose cohesiveness, superiority, and dignity were plainly visible in the rank accorded to it in religious, military, or civic processions” (Duby, 1980, p. 73). As institutions with devotion to religious service, universities deserved their special privileges allotted to a medieval corporation and order.

Therefore, here is the foundation for higher education and tenure: through their service to the world, their autonomy, privilege, and protection earned. However, it is important to understand the nature of these privileges. These privileges were bestowed on the community first, which then empowered the individual with rights secondly (Harding, 1980, p. 432). Service was the basis for communal privilege.  Harding further detailed this idea when he said:

Yet liberties granted by charter remained by definition privileges, even when the recipients were communities; they were not the rights of individual citizens. Even Magna Carta, that "charter of liberties of the realm of England," was the culmination of an old story, not the beginning of a new one, the greatest charter of territorial immunity and communal privilege rather than a bill of rights for individuals. (Harding, 1980, p. 434)

The point to take from this is that the immunities and protections granted to corporations and tenurial landholders were in fact communal and not individual. The communal privileges however did pave the way for individual liberties: “the rights passed on to the communities of tenants in rural and . . . urban liberties gave content to the idea of individual liberty, which may be defined as the bundle of separate privileges appropriate to a man's sphere of life” (Harding, 1980, p. 434). The notion of the community and communal rights fueled the idea of individual liberty and rights. The rights of the community are important in establishing the rights of the individual. This fortifies the idea of tenure acting both as an individual and group privilege, but placing more emphasis on the group before the individual.

While this is English tenure, similar concepts of exceptions and privileges in France existed as well. “In the Middle Ages, the similarities between universities and trade corporations were clearly signaled in language: not only were both headed by ‘masters,’ but apprentices in the manual arts were frequently called escolans and journeyman, bacheliers” (Sewell, 1980, p. 25). Corporations were endowed with privileges of self regulations and autonomy too: “The nobility, the clergy, chivalric orders, and even orders of monks and friars were legally recognized, privileged, internally regulated, semiautonomous bodies organized in a fashion analogous to trade corporations” (Sewell, 1980, p. 25). The universities maintained their place amongst the upper-echelon of the hierarchical structure due to their practicing of theological arts, a practice that, “became increasingly honorable and increasingly spiritual the higher the rank” (Sewell, 1980, p. 25). The religious and spiritual nature of higher education enabled university recognition and privileges of corporations to be bestowed upon the institution of higher education.  

Corporations contained an element of communalism.   When entering a corporation, membership required a sworn oath of loyalty to the group called a, “métiers jurés,” or a “sworn trade” (Sewell, 1980, p. 26). The language of the grant entitling corporations was for, “en perpétuité ledit état. . . en état juré pour y avoir corps, confrairie et communauté” (in perpetuity the said trade . . . as a sworn trade in order to have body, confraternity, and community) (Sewell, 1980, p. 26). The language here specifically emphasized community, meaning the group, and makes no mention of the individual. Sewell (1980) quoted 17th century jurist Domat: “Legitimately established communities stand in the place of persons. . . . They are considered a single whole. And as each person exercises his rights. . . it is the same with communities”  (as cited by Sewell, 1980, p. 26-27). Corporations like the university enabled individual rights through their communal association, which not only enabled them, but strengthened them. When exercising these individual rights, it was done through the community as expressed as a single legal entity. The community precedes the individual.

While the corporations were popular amongst some people, particularly those who were privileged, they were highly unpopular amongst those for whom inequities existed. For the scope of this argument, this lead to the French Revolution, which ultimately lead to the abolition and dissolution of the corporate world. The next section details their fall and the role of the French Revolution’s influence in the changing social attitude and philosophical underpinnings where the world changed from a group orientation and communal society toward an individualistic one. The French Revolution is the philosophical basis for this change in tenure as well.

The End of Corporations and the French Revolution

The corporations prior to the French Revolution were communal, hierarchical, contained sacred elements, and were privileged [exemption from taxes and military conscription as well as their own court systems (Norton, 1909, p. 80)]. These privileges ultimately drove an insurmountable wedge between the privileged and the unprivileged. The French Revolution stemmed from the desire to abolish privilege and inequity of these corporations (amongst other inequities) and replace it with a world governed by, “the invariant laws of nature and the crystalline simplicity of reason, in which equality under the law and the liberty of the individual citizen would be at once the foundation and the goal of public life” (Sewell, 1980, p. 62). The proponents of this new philosophy were known as the philosophes: “the philosophes turned to nature as the source of all truth and to reason as the sole means of attaining knowledge” (Sewell, 1980, p. 64). Essentially, they believed that “all men- now understood as purely natural beings- were essentially equal and in which order derived from nature rather than from a divinely sanctioned hierarchy” (Sewell, 1980, p. 64). The violent revolution knelled the end of the corporation and the old order; the hierarchies, stronger value of the group over the individual, traditions, and sacred notions were abolished. 

The French Revolution introduced a new lexicon. Nisbet (1966) said, “A different set of words and ideas encompassed moral and political aspiration: ideas like individual, progress, contract, nature, reason” (p. 8).  These new ideologies are a sharp contrast to preserving or conserving the state of being, as they are liberating the individual from them. Thus, the new order is a liberal one: “The hallmark of liberalism is devotion to the individual” (Nisbet, 1966, p. 10). The individual is the focus of the new order, the liberal one, and the group/community is a constraint to his or her progress and emancipation. “What tradition is to the conservative. . . individual autonomy is to the liberal. . . . belief that progress lay in the emancipation of man’s mind and spirit from the religious and traditional bonds of the old order” (Nibset, 1966, p. 10). This clearly relates to higher education and tenure, according to Nisbet (1966), as he said, “the notion of the discrete, self-motivating, and self-stabilizing individual is primary. Institutions and traditions are secondary: at best his shadows; at worst, barriers to self-assertion” (p. 10). Higher education historian Haskins corroborated Nisbet’s notion of the individual, but specifically regarding higher education as a corporation: “First, the very name university, as an association of masters and scholars leading the common life of learning. Characteristic of the Middle Ages as such a corporation is, the individualistic modern world has found nothing to take its place” (Haskins, 1923, p. 24).

The French Revolution and the philosophy of the Enlightenment advanced the individual and abolished the communal corporate life. American higher education was not immune to the sweeping changes brought about by one of the great ideas of the western world. A brief return to the historical progression of early American higher education is necessary up until the WWII/Cold War era to fully understand how this shift is articulated and fulfilled here in the United States. This next section begins with the early charters of the first universities.

Higher Education In America

Some of the earliest American universities like Harvard and Brown were influenced by the medieval tradition of privileges. This medieval influence is clearly visible through their charters, as Norton (1909) said:

The charter of Harvard College and Brown University the familiar exemption of corporate property and from taxation, and the exemption of persons connected with these institutions not only from taxes, but also from other public duties. The charter from Brown refers explicitly to European university privileges. (p. 101)

Further, the earliest American colleges and universities also retained stronger elements of communalism, with particular emphasis on the local community:

The trustees were closely tied to the local community or congregations which not only provided funds for the support of these institutions but also depended on the institution to provide ministers and teachers for the local community as well as general and moral education for the young men of the community. (Brown, 1997, pp. 443-444)

The success of the institutions came due to investment of the local communities in a reciprocal hope of fortifying their communities with newly educated men to strengthen their moral and spiritual convictions. As the universities grew in size and scope, so waned the centrality and exclusivity of the success of the institution to the local community (Brown, 1997, p. 444). New donors created the same effect of disinterestedness in the local community (Brown, 1997, p. 444). A gradual move away from community deemphasizes the importance of service due to the expanding mission that drifted away from servicing the community.

Essentially, the university in America meandered down a path away from service and the community and in so doing changed fundamentally, as Nisbet (1971), said when academic capitalism altered the university. The individual began to shine and the group waned. Academic capitalism transforms the university by using a market model which makes everyone, “maximize his or her self-interest” (Roepnack & Lewis, 2007, p. 228). “Any altruistic motives about, ‘serving the common good’ are just smokescreens for . . . job security. Within the market place . . . efficiency is key. . . . the university must be run as efficiently as possible” (Roepnack & Lewis, 2007, p. 228). The emphasis on the individual and efficiency is the exact opposite of serving the community.

The ideas of efficiency and maximizing one’s self interest in the name of capitalism are now manifested through publication and research as scholarship (Boyer, 1990; Caplow & McGee, 1958). Faculty pay and promotion today are directly linked to research and publication.  As of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, “research consistently showed scholarly productivity as the strongest correlate of faculty pay. Teaching was typically unrelated to or a negative factor in faculty compensation” (Fairweather, 2005, p. 401). Bok (2013) said, “The more books and articles professor produce, the higher their salaries. The more hours per week they spend in the classroom, the smaller their paycheck” (p. 329). The problem with this method of promotional evaluation (tenure) is that it is often strictly based on a quantitative threshold and not evaluated on the quality of the work: “publications used for promotion decisions are just counted, not qualitative evaluated” (Carnegie Foundation, 1992, as cited by Bok, 2013, p. 329). Bok further delineated the problem with the emphasis on research and publication for tenure as he said it leads to large amounts of research that is essentially worthless, un-cited in other publications in the field, and takes away from quality of teaching and student engagement (pp. 329-331). If faculty members lack the time for students and teaching due to excessive and fruitless research pressures, certainly service is sacrificed at its expense. Again, Bok only mentioned service in quotations as, “service” (p. 30), so he clearly questioned the strength of institutional commitment to service.

The devotion to research and the ignoring of service in the pursuit of tenure in an academic capitalist regime is truly an irony in the face of the feudal institution.  Roepnack and Lewis (2007) described the contemporary milieu as a “market model.” This is one where, “The university produces good students by sending them through the ‘assembly line’ of classes in which ‘content providers’ stand, spewing out information, making investment deposits in the students” (p. 227). While this is talking about the effect of academic capitalism on teaching, the analogy is quite comparable with regards to research: faculty is merely publishing content for the sake of publishing and an effort to gain tenure and promotion. They publish research in an “assembly line” fashion essentially “spewing out information” (Roepnack & Lewis, 2007, p. 227).

This is highly ironic in the face of the medieval university where tenure was bestowed on the community for service. There, the idea of knowledge was sacred, as Nisbet (1971) said, “Knowledge is important. Just that. Not ‘relevant’ knowledge; not ‘practical’ knowledge; not the kind of knowledge that enables one to yield power, achieve success, or influence others. Knowledge!” (p. 24). Tenure was bestowed upon the medieval university because of the sacredness of its knowledge and the service it was providing to the world. Nisbet defined the concept of the sacred as, “The mores, the non-rational, the religious and ritualistic ways of behavior that are valued beyond whatever utility they may possess” (Nisbet, 1966, p. 6). The sacred, conceptually speaking, is best understood when contrasted with the profane. Emile Durkheim (1912/1955) articulated the dichotomy of the sacred and the profane in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.  Allen (2007) explained Durkheim’s ideas by saying:

One of the primary features of the sacred is that it stands diametrically opposed to the profane. In fact, one cannot exist in the presence of the other . . . . The sacred either destroys the profane or the sacred becomes contaminated by the presence of the profane. (p. 117)

In the medieval institution knowledge was sacred; in the contemporary university, knowledge is highly profane. The market model is the profane version of higher education while the community model of education is the sacred one. Roepnack and Lewis (2007) contrasted the market model of the university relative to tenure with the community model by explaining that the community model values education as a public good, the faculty work conjunctively with the administration, and that, “the whole community benefits” (p. 229). The community model, i.e. the one higher education as a corporation that deserves the privilege of tenure is predicated on, “does not follow the rational choice model of the market place. The pursuit of truth and the building up of knowledge is not a well understood process” (Roepnack & Lewis, 2007, p. 229). Not following the “rational choice model” (Roepnack & Lewis, 2007, p. 229) goes hand-in-hand with Nisbet’s (1966) notion of “the Sacred” (p. 6).  

When comparing and contrasting the community model with the market model of education, it is “easy to see that they are, diametrically opposed” (Allen, 2007, p. 117) as the sacred and the profane and that, “The sacred either destroys the profane or the sacred becomes contaminated by the presence of the profane” (Allen, 2007, p. 117). The two cannot coexist and ultimately undermine each other. Originally, the corporate community of higher education understood knowledge as sacred; today, the individual understands knowledge as a profane means to a financial and vocational promotion. This is not the original idea of tenure. Contemporary tenure is not a communal undertaking that values service as it often values research as a profane means to an end, forcing academics to shirk other responsibilities and to publish merely for the sake of publishing without a reverence to the sacredness of knowledge and service to the community in pursuit of a higher goal.

Conclusion

Today’s landscape of higher education is a far cry from the medieval corporate institution. While it is easy to see the arguments presented here as a romanticism of a time period with significant societal inequities and flaws, it is not. What the arguments presented in this paper are meant to accomplish are the advancement of the notion that tenure is a communal privilege that endowed the individual with rights on the basis of the services provided by higher education to the community. The advancing of the public good merited this privilege. Today, tenure is earned by the individual for research with an abjuring of service.

Gone is the corporate notion that, “implied unity, brotherhood, and a feeling of love and compassion between fellow members” (Sewell, 1980, p. 32); this corporate unity contained a “common will or spirit- an esprit de corps- and a deep indissoluble bond such that harm done to any one ‘member’ is felt by all. . . . The phrase meant to be united in all bonds of solidarity” (Sewell, 1980, p. 33). These communal bonds have been eroded over time in favor of the individual. Further absent are the loyalty-oaths that the corporate individual took upon entry (Sewell, 1980) as they were legally abolished by California courts in 1967 and shortly after by the U.S. Supreme Court (O’Neil, 2005, p. 97). Additionally, the community in which the university is located became more and more a simple place of work and less and less a community: “Faculty began to live more distant from campus and to spend less time as active leaders in their campus communities. Increasingly, the university was becoming simply a place of work” (Zemsky, 2006, p. 28). These changes pushed the communal university further and further from importance as the individual’s umbrage is cast.

It is important to remember our past and our true purpose as institutions of higher education. We are here as a group to serve the community, not as individuals here to publish. This is the purpose of tenure: a privilege bestowed upon the community which enables the individual to serve.

Related Items:

Article References

Lindenwood University
209 S. Kingshighway
St. Charles, MO 63301