The tenure system rightfully rewards professors for their commitment


When I first discovered tenure, I thought it was insane. Tenure is essentially when a college permanently appoints a professor at the institution.

However, tenure is not a lifetime guarantee, but a right to due process. If an institution decides to let go of a tenured professor, it must provide evidence as to why the professor should no longer be employed.

People tend to believe tenure is permanent employment, but about two percent of tenured professors are let go annually. Tenure is not easily achievable, as it takes many years of assessment for consideration.

The process is done through several student and faculty interviews and reviews over an extended period of time. So, is tenure a good thing?

Strangely, teaching is the only profession that provides tenure. The majority of professors at Union have a PhD, which on average takes eight years to earn. While most American adults establish their careers after college, our professors continued their formal education.

As we’re all aware, school is expensive. Tenure is not only a great accomplishment, but also a relief for professors who have spent exceptional time and money on education.

Some may argue that lawyers and doctors go to school for an equal period, but don’t receive the same protection. The average salary for lawyers and doctors is higher than that of professors, but the discrepancy is insufficient to explain why professors are given tenure.

Nothing in life is guaranteed, which is an incentive to work hard. My hesitation with tenure stems from this principle. Will professors lose their incentive to grow and challenge themselves when they receive tenure?

Though this is possible, I am convinced that learning is a fundamental part of professors’ lives that they must look to constantly expand their knowledge.

Several professors have received tenure, but they continue to publish work, attend lectures and conferences, and participate in research. After all, students are still required to fill out evaluations for professors regardless of their status.

While tenure is a relief, it is a support system for professors who have worked hard to earn it. I am confident that the professors who have earned tenure at Union deserve it, and will continue to strive toward greatness.

Students should look at tenure as a pat on the backfor, rather than permanent employment.


  1. It is my opinion that tenure is abused at Union. It allows professors to be inappropriate in actions leading toward Chair Dean Reviews. The Chair Dean review used for honor violations are independent of any Unites States judicial system standards. Union in this regard is a society who judges by it own set of laws and protocols. It is the most on sided judgement system imaginable in my opinion. I beleive this because of two reasons . One, the Chair of the chair dean review is a Union student , not the Chair of the students department. The studens are not credentialed to make honor violation decisions that can effect a students academic history and ability to graduate on time or take a semester abroad. The Student Chair don’t even have a college degree or in my opinion life experience to draw ion to make important decisions. I think although they are there to be a voice for a student they inevitably, in my opinion will feel that they should side with a Dean or other tenured professor. What is more unthinkable is the final decision is signed by a tenured professor who usually has his PH.D. And is also the Dean of Student disciple. He or she has many years of education and life experience. The second signature
    Is a student. Usually a young, non college graduate who has little life experience in honor violation or any academic matters to make a reasonable and correct decision. It is a severally flawed system that has caused many students emotional turmoil, as the Chair Dean Review is a traumatic day for a young student in Union’s version of court.
    Review decisions are almost always final. Appeals have
    hardly ever, if ever been voverturned no matter how egregious the action of the tenured professor or compelling the appeal. There is a definite feel by the students that Administration, professors and Deans support their decision and each other over reviewing the appeal and decided first and foremost what is right and just for the student. As Lenny Bruce said” the only justice found in the halls of justice is in the halls”. At Union even that is not true. Small and minor honor violations are often, in my opinion sent to the “draconian” Chair Dean Review as opposed to being handled in a more humane way than
    traumatizing a student by sending them to the Chair Dean
    Review. Even this name is misleading as its should be called the Student Chair And Dean Review. It is a much more transparent name.
    I think tenure at Union has created a culture of unaccountability, Allowing professors to expound on their
    political or ethical opinions because they feel empowered
    and untouchable by tenure. As a student, if one hears it doesn’t matter what student survey says because I am “tenured”, then what does the student do when they feel a moral obligation to give a bad student survey, A decision made after they and other students in the class feel that standards have not been met, and inappropriate opinions have been expressed.
    In closing my opinion is at Union, tenure equals unaccountababiity. The system needs to be examined at many levels as it is clearly flawed

Leave a Reply