All of the hullabaloo over the so-called destruction of tenure in Wisconsin is a total waste of time, people. Scott Walker feels humiliated by the pathetic performance of his presidential campaign and is trying to get his handlers to pat him on the ass and say, “Good doggie!” by creating a lot of drama over nothing.
Let’s look closely at what Walker has actually “achieved”:
Previously in Wisconsin, tenure was enshrined in state statute, and there were no provisions beyond financial exigency allowing for the termination of a tenured faculty member in good standing.
Got it? A claim of “financial exigency” was enough to fire any tenured professor. This is precisely the excuse that is used in every single case of firing a tenured faculty member that I ever encountered. Once this possibility is opened, tenure loses all meaning. And this was the situation in Wisconsin BEFORE Walker’s futzing with it.
And here is what’s “new” about the policy:
Last spring, however, the state Legislature changed the statute as part of a budget bill to make it much easier to fire tenured faculty members for any number of reasons — including those as vague as “program modifications.”
For those not in academia, here is a little clarification: “program modifications” are a synonym for “financial exigency.” Programs are often “modified” under the excuse of there not being enough money and tenured people are fired as a result. Ergo, nothing whatsoever has changed other than Walker’s desperate need to prove to those who have poured millions into his failed campaign that he is still worth something.
Let’s not allow him to succeed by paying too much attention to his childish antics. Every article titled “Walker Destroyed Tenure in Wisconsin” is a gift to the silly loser that doesn’t reflect reality.
Clarissa's Blog 
Am I remembering incorrectly that Walker cut the University system’s funding by $300 million per year and increased teaching loads to such an extent that research is, or will become, impossible?
LikeLike
I’m not discussing Walker’s multiple sins against humanity. I’m discussing the idea that Walker destroyed tenure in Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Well technically financial exigency is vastly different than program modification. The two aren’t synonyms at all to my ind. Declaring financial exigency is an involved process that requires investigation (sometimes internal, sometimes external) a formal declaration (and thus negative publicity), and a whole host of other requirements. In other words declaring financial exigency is a big deal.
Program modifications on the other hand is nothing. My department just made a series of modifications to one of our majors (nobody was fired– only updating). But the point is that programs/majors are almost always being modified while financial exigency is relatively rare.
So to me, this is a big deal. It considerably widened the scope and the ease with which tenured faculty can get terminated. I consider it tragic.
LikeLike
“In other words declaring financial exigency is a big deal.”
Last week, the Governor of Illinois met with the presidents of our state universities and indicated that there will be a lot of “program modifications” as a result of “financial exigency.” Our university’s president told me personally to my face that the best thing to do is to look for employment elsewhere. And while Wisconsin’s public ed funding has been cut, we get no funding at all because there is no budget. None of this is creating an investigation, a declaration, or a big deal.
So what is the difference between our situation and Wisconsin’s? Just what I said: they have Walker who is posturing because he wants to wash mud off his face. My question: why are we helping him?
LikeLike
There’s no tenure at KU – where I teach – by this definition.
“Faculty and staff may also be suspended, dismissed or terminated from employment for reasons of significant reduction in or elimination of the funding source supporting the position, program discontinuance, financial exigency, or for just cause related to the performance of or failure to perform the individual’s duties or for violation of the reasonable directives, rules and regulations, and laws of the institution, the Board and the State of Kansas or the United States.”
We also have post-tenure review.
Program discontinuance does not have to stem financial exigency. Theoretically, the university could decide they don’t want to teach French and fire all the French professors, even in the absence of a budget crisis. Almost all universities have some mechanism for eliminating entire programs and getting rid of relevant faculty.
LikeLike
Exactly. That’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s a myth that it’s impossible to get rid of tenured professors.
LikeLike
I think tenure had more symbolic than real meaning.
For faculty it gave them a new goal to work toward at a time when many otherwise might take a breather (from which they’d never restart the race).
It was also a powerful symbolic commitment to the free exchange of ideas without repurcussions and undirected pursuit of knowledge.
Neither matters anymore in the post-nation state.
One of the reasons for the surge of adjunct hiring is precisely to rob tenure of any real meaning. As tenured faculty retire and die most of those vacant places will not be replaced by tenure lines. And expect to “reorganization” to get rid of many of the lingerers.
If any and all steady stable employment is to be replaced by part time temporary gigs then what is tenure needed for? Why should university teaching staff be any different from any other widget maker or counter tender?
If neither major party has any particular commitment to the free exchange of ideas (quite the opposite) then no symbolic commitment to the idea is needed.
Free research agendas also mean that researchers could come up with ideas that are not wanted by those in charge. Easier to simply pay for research on an “as needed” basis rather than maintain simmering cauldrons of ideas that could explode at any time….
LikeLike
For me personally – but just for me, not for the rest of humanity, or the world, or academia, just for me – it would be better if tenure went away. And I say it as somebody who has tenure.
I’d like to have greater mobility, professionally and geographically, and right now I’m prevented by all the people who are sitting there, doing nothing, and refusing to retire because that would be even more boring.
This is an instance where my personal interests do not coincide with the greater good. 🙂
LikeLike
I don’t know if you saw or mentioned this, but it’s evidence for the European ruling class disinvesting in their native populations (and indirect evidence that the current migration wave is meant to hasten that process).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-king-willem-alexander-declares-the-end-of-the-welfare-state-8822421.html
The King of the Dutch is essentially telling the people to look out for themselves as he has bigger fish to fry (and madder social experiments to conduct).
LikeLike
Thank you for the link! This is precisely the collapse of the nation-state that I’ve been talking about this entire time. I did not anticipate that immigrants would be used so blatantly for this purpose but this seems to have been the method chosen to achieve the goal of dismantling the nation-state.
It might seem that these are all unconnected phenomena but they are all part of the same process.
LikeLike