Tenure, a practice that many believed to be sacrosanct, has come under fire of late. Many college presidents are in favor of abolishing tenure and replacing it with contracts for a definite period. Doing so would provide professors with limited security, similar to that enjoyed by professional athletes, but would eliminate their lifetime contracts. Lifetime is correct because mandatory retirement at a particular age has been repealed.

Proponents of tenure argue that Ph.D. candidates forego income to pursue this advanced degree in return for the promise of long-term employment. They also claim that the ability to conduct research without interference is embedded in the security of tenure. Tenure is needed in order to continue the stream of intelligent academic scholars who will continue to educate students in the classroom and the public through their writings. Academic freedom is secured through tenure. It diminishes the fear of reprisal by administrators.

Opponents of tenure claim that it turns vibrant workers into deadwood. Creativity is replaced by complacency. It perpetuates the notion of doing the minimal amount of work to get by. Tenure also inhibits administrators from shifting people among departments where they are needed the most.

Clearly, the battle lines are drawn. It is a difficult undertaking to undo, for it is much like the status of seniority within unions. But unlike many union jobs, academic positions cannot be as easily off-shored.

Is tenure necessary or should it be abolished? Why or why not?