<p>See, I don’t see this as an indictment of tenure, but rather I think both of these gentlemen should have been not granted tenure to begin with. </p>
<p>The CO guy had serious flaws in his earlier scholarly life that should have been caught by the tenure committee. This Butz guy–if I were his peer, I would think his refusal to believe in the Holocaust indicates a not-entirely-empirical mind, something that would give me serious pause no matter what the apparent quality of his teaching or research in the entirely separate field of engineering. I’d consider it mixed evidence of his aptitude.</p>
<p>I think tenure is important to protect those who may hold unpopular ideas or want to pursue research in controversial areas. But alas, when tenure committees make mistakes, it also ends up protecting some undeserving souls, some of whom are a real embarrassment to the academy. I’d rather work to eliminate the mistakes than to eliminate tenure.</p>
<p>Well, hoedown, I would agree with you if it were still the case that all academic departments in all universities and colleges were actually academically rigorous. But the proliferation of non-academic classes and departments based on politically-correct standards of worth rather than clear fact makes the entire system ludicrous.</p>
<p>These examples, not to mention the incredible prevalence of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, indicates the presence of numerous cancers in Academe, not the least of which is the wholesale overexpansion of post-secondary education in this country. IMO, of course.</p>
<p>I don’t see the connection between lack of rigor connected to “Politically correct standards of worth” and the flaws of tenure. </p>
<p>They are two separate issues, in my mind. I don’t see how one applies to the other. And I don’t see how it makes the entire system ludicrous, or their connection to the size and scope of higher ed in the United states. However, it sounds like that would warrant another thread.</p>