Later today, the Faculty Senate - which is a part of the greater University Governing Body - will decide whether to pass a vote of no confidence in both Chancellor Doug Girod and Provost Barbara Bichelmeyer. This decision is similar to that of the U.S. impeachment process, where it merely initiates a process but does not itself result in anyone’s ouster or removal of office. That decision is ultimately made by the Kansas Board of Regents (KBoR). The move to bring such a decision to a vote was sparked by the administration’s perceived and implied willingness to utilize an administrative tool approved by the KBoR that allows university presidents and chancellors to terminate professors without having to go through the usual mechanics afforded to tenured professors. In short, universities can terminate contracts at will (you can read more about the decision here). Another layer to this developing situation, is that the Board’s decision was itself prompted by Governor Kelly’s decision to substantially reduce funding ($33 million) to all state higher education budgets (by 5.3% to KU’s budget specifically). With funding to Kanas universities having been cut already over the last 10 years and the ongoing pandemic having caused a projected loss of over $70 million dollars, the board argued it had no other choice other than explore drastic measures such as suspending long held and observed academic norms.

Now, this fight for tenure need not entail that it is not above reproach or in need of reforming. Tenure as a mechanism has, for some time now, been associated with an over all decline in productivity, care in teaching, and general utility to a university’s academic ecology. Other criticisms focus on the method by which tenure is granted. Many institutions follow the traditional three factors: (1) Teaching; (2) Service; and (3) Research. Much of the time, greater weight is placed on a candidate’s research production, whereas less weight is placed on their teaching and service credentials. Now, some universities weight these three differently, certainly, but for the most part this statement holds true much of the time. Wherever one falls on these issues, these are not necessarily knockdown arguments for doing away with tenure all together. Rather, they at most demonstrate a need to have a conversation about how it may be properly reformed and improved.

Although the state board’s decision only allows for a temporary suspension of tenure protections, the consequences may ultimately prove to have more costs than benefits for the state (as job applicants may deem the state academic ecology too volatile) and more broadly for academia. Other state legislatures like Iowa’s have looked to Kansas as possible model to copy in their own attempts to reform higher education. With all this being said, it is not the purpose of this article to evaluate or adjudicate a very complicated situation. Rather, we merely say all this to a little stage setting.

Finally, tenured professors are not the only parties affected by KBoR’s decision. Students, and more specifically graduate students also have some skin in the game. The following passage is a letter written by the Graduate Association for Philosophy Students (GAPS), an organization of which I am a part, regarding their thoughts and concerns over the controversial policy.

We, the graduate students of the philosophy department at the University of Kansas, are writing to urge you to reconsider your position on the recent Kansas Board of Regents policy and ensure that the university continues to respect tenure protections. We understand that as the Chancellor and Provost you have to make difficult decisions, especially during challenging times such as what we face today. However, we implore you to re-examine and re-consider the detrimental effects of this policy on the university as a whole. When faced with troubling circumstances, coming to the right decision requires both courage and practical imagination about what is possible. Our perception, not uncommon among those who oppose acceptance of this policy, is that this decision demonstrates not courage but desperation, and also a lack of administrative imagination. Surely there is a better solution, one that does not signal to current and potential scholars that KU is not in a position to protect their research projects from bad faith political forces. 

As many have already noted, acceptance of this policy generates irreversible repercussions and sets a disturbing precedent which will lead to the University of Kansas losing our strong academic reputation. Prestigious faculty will leave. Fewer students will enroll. Extramural funding will similarly fall without meaningful tenure protections as faculty will be less able to pursue novel or long-term projects (and this is assuming donors do not boycott KU outright).  The COVID-19 pandemic and other financial concerns of our university can be weathered without causing so much permanent damage. Faculty salary is not the chief cause of the university’s financial worries. Empirical evidence proves this: only 25% of tuition money goes toward compensating our faculty, down from 47% in 2009. In the face of this evidence, the decision to target tenured faculty seems irrational, to say the least. In any case, the savings we will achieve by adopting this policy will be marginal, especially after the litigation that will inevitably follow. As administrators who accepted the responsibility of guiding our university, are you confident that the financial situation will not be made even worse in the process, as student enrollment and external funding suffer?

Additionally, what is especially salient from our perspective is that the graduate student experience at our university will change drastically if our faculty lose tenure protections. Faculty leaving or refusing to teach here means our advisors and mentors leaving or refusing to teach here. Not only will this affect the motivation of current KU graduate students to continue their training here, but also the likelihood of recruiting new graduate students, the difficulty of which will likely increase substantially. Why would prospective graduate students choose the University of Kansas when, due to a general loss of job security, its faculty cannot devote adequate time to graduate student training and teaching? Some of the most esteemed teachers and researchers at KU have been among the most vocal against these decisions because they understand that tenure is necessary for a vibrant research ecology. Their outrage does not come from a feeling of entitlement, but from a genuine concern for the health of the institution, the same concern that drives us to reach out to you today. Those affected by this policy, both directly and indirectly, are invested in helping KU continue to grow, and it is extremely disappointing to see their work nearly undone by these administrative decisions. 

To conclude, we strongly disagree with the recent administrative moves to suspend the norms of shared governance and tenure protections. We implore you to refuse to abide by this policy and to reconsider alternatives. We have faith that you can find a better solution, one which doesn’t threaten the well-being and reputation of our beloved university.