As state legislatures in Texas, Kansas, and other states push to eliminate or severely restrict tenure, it's crucial to understand what's at stake. Tenure has been a cornerstone of American higher education for over a century, enshrined in policy documents by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) that establish its fundamental role in protecting academic freedom.

These foundational documents make clear that tenure isn't just a perk for professors—it's a vital safeguard for the pursuit of truth and the advancement of knowledge. Yet, even as we must defend tenure against political attacks, we should also acknowledge that the system isn't perfect. A clear-eyed examination of tenure's strengths and limitations can help us protect its essential features while considering thoughtful reforms.

At its core, tenure provides crucial protection for scholars pursuing controversial research or expressing unpopular views. Survey data support this protective effect: a 2022 national survey of faculty found that non-tenure-track faculty self-censor at significantly higher rates (42%) compared to their tenured colleagues. The need for such protection appears particularly acute today, with more than a third of faculty indicating they have seen a decline in their academic freedom recently.

This data underscores why current legislative attempts to eliminate tenure are counterproductive. Without tenure's protections, faculty become more vulnerable to political pressure and administrative overreach, potentially compromising their ability to pursue truth wherever it leads. The chilling effect on academic freedom would be profound, affecting not just individual scholars but the entire enterprise of knowledge creation and dissemination.

At the same time, we should acknowledge that the tenure system may present some difficulties in promoting viewpoint diversity. The hiring and promotion process can select against scholars with non-mainstream views. Research from the social sciences has documented concerning levels of a disposition to discriminate on the basis of perceived ideology in hiring decisions; other research suggests that underrepresented minorities might also be subject to double-standards when they are evaluated for promotion and tenure. The path to tenure may also incentivize conformity: junior scholars often receive explicit advice to avoid controversial research until after tenure, and even in the biomedical sciences, researchers report pressure to propose “safe” ideas to secure grants and publications necessary for tenure.

But those difficulties suggest there may be a need for thoughtful reform rather than abolition. So far, none of the legislative proposals on offer come close to achieving this.

As faculty face mounting political attacks on tenure, we must be strategic in its defense. By recognizing that tenure, like any institutional structure, has both benefits and drawbacks, stakeholders in higher education can more productively talk about how to preserve its essential protections and address its potential negative impacts on viewpoint diversity. They might even come up with alternative frameworks for protecting academic freedom that are superior.

Until a superior alternative is identified, the current political climate makes it imperative to defend tenure against those who would weaken or eliminate it. The Texas legislature is considering a bill to stop offering tenure to new hires at Texas public institutions of higher education. The Kansas state legislature has also considered a bill to gut tenure at Kansas public institutions of higher education. (Read more here.) The stakes are high—some high elected officials have declared that universities, and by extension the faculty they employ, are the enemy. Tenure is one important defense against attempts by government officials to punish faculty for research and teaching that doesn’t align with the desires of those in power.

As lawmakers in multiple states attempt to dismantle tenure protections, we must remember that academic freedom isn't just an abstract principle—it's essential to the pursuit of knowledge and truth. While tenure may not be perfect, it remains our strongest bulwark against political interference in academic inquiry. Defending it, even as we work to improve it, is crucial for the future of American higher education.