Tenure protects more than employment: it supports the independence needed for teaching, scholarship, and honest participation in university governance.
The principle of tenure has long been central to higher education. It is designed not to guarantee lifelong employment but to protect academic freedom — the right of faculty to teach, research, and publish without fear of reprisal, even when their work challenges dominant views. Yet in recent years, tenure has been tested not by the production of controversial scholarship but by faculty engaging in overt political activism on campus. A growing number of cases show that tenure cannot, and should not, serve as a shield for political stances or protest activity undertaken outside one’s area of academic expertise.
In a recent post, we discussed how tenure and academic freedom should not serve as shields for faculty espousing political opinions outside their academic expertise while on campus or in their professional capacity. The principle of tenure was never meant to justify partisan activism under the guise of scholarship. But the same conviction that guides this view, the belief that academic freedom must be grounded in fairness, also demands that we defend the right of faculty to express personal opinions in non-professional contexts.
A senior university administrator’s decision to forgo his performance-based bonus and instead direct it toward campus programs deserves recognition. As the voice of PUIs, we at the Connect appreciate this gesture for the personal act of generosity, and an exemplary demonstration of leadership at a time when higher education finds itself under financial strain.
With his re-election, President Trump has brought into focus his administration’s aim to reduce the federal government’s role in education, this time with increased momentum. Central to this effort is the proposal to eliminate or significantly scale back the U.S. Department of Education (DoE). While such an overhaul has yet to materialize into law, policy outlines and public statements make it clear that the Department is under direct political threat. In this article, we provide an update on the current status of those efforts, outline the broader implications for American higher education, and discuss in particular how Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) may be disproportionately affected by such structural changes.
As I was reading about the recent Nebraska legislative hearing regarding LB 1064 proposed by a state lawmaker in 2024 for making modifications to how tenure is governed in public postsecondary institutions, a particular comment drew attention: "While tenure initially was good policy, some professors now delegate much of their work to graduate students and teaching assistants." This line of reasoning, offered in defense of rolling back tenure protections, is increasingly common across the country. Yet it rests on a misleading and oversimplified view of the academic workforce, especially within the context of PUIs where the faculty work more closely with students as mentors and educators in addition to their research pursuits.
PUI Connect
