The Volokh Conspiracy - Francis Fukuyama's Case Against Academic Tenure:

Well-known political scientist Francis Fukuyama argues that we should abolish tenure:

I'm a tenured professor. But I'd get rid of tenure.

Tenure was created to protect academic freedom after a series of 19th-century cases when university donors or legislators tried to remove professors whose views they disliked...

The rationale for tenure is still valid. But the system has turned the academy into one of the most conservative and costly institutions in the country. Yes, conservative: Economists joke that their discipline advances one funeral at a time, but many fields must wait for wholesale generational turnover before new approaches take hold.

The system also hamstrings younger untenured professors, making them fearful of taking intellectual risks and causing them to write in jargon aimed only at those in their narrow subdiscipline...

These problems are made worse by a federal employment law that bars universities from instituting mandatory retirement. Deans and provosts can't remove elderly professors who take up slots that could fund two or three younger colleagues...

Things don't have to be this way. Academic freedom can thrive in think tanks and research institutes. U.S.-style tenure doesn't exist in Britain or Australia. Japan grants tenure but forces professors to retire at a relatively early age (60 at Tokyo University). . .

I have long shared Fukuyama's concerns. And, even though I was recently voted tenure myself, I still have serious doubts about this institution. I'm not even sure that it really does very much to protect academic freedom. As I explained in this post, a university intent on imposing ideological orthodoxy can simply exclude dissenters at the entry level hiring stage or at the point of promotion to tenure. Although I'm happy to be tenured, I still doubt that the small increment of extra protection for academic freedom provided by tenure is worth the immense costs noted by Fukuyama and other critics.

UPDATE: As a preemptive response to accusations of hypocrisy ("How can you accept the benefits of tenure if you're opposed to it?"), I cite my post on the ethics of benefiting from policies that you oppose.

	[Ilya Somin, April 20, 2009 at 10:26pm] Trackbacks Francis Fukuyama's Case Against Academic Tenure: Well-known political scientist Francis Fukuyama argues that we should abolish tenure: I'm a tenured professor. But I'd get rid of tenure. Tenure was created to protect academic freedom after a series of 19th-century cases when university donors or legislators tried to remove professors whose views they disliked... The rationale for tenure is still valid. But the system has turned the academy into one of the most conservative and costly institutions in the country. Yes, conservative: Economists joke that their discipline advances one funeral at a time, but many fields must wait for wholesale generational turnover before new approaches take hold. The system also hamstrings younger untenured professors, making them fearful of taking intellectual risks and causing them to write in jargon aimed only at those in their narrow subdiscipline... These problems are made worse by a federal employment law that bars universities from instituting mandatory retirement. Deans and provosts can't remove elderly professors who take up slots that could fund two or three younger colleagues... Things don't have to be this way. Academic freedom can thrive in think tanks and research institutes. U.S.-style tenure doesn't exist in Britain or Australia. Japan grants tenure but forces professors to retire at a relatively early age (60 at Tokyo University). . . I have long shared Fukuyama's concerns. And, even though I was recently voted tenure myself, I still have serious doubts about this institution. I'm not even sure that it really does very much to protect academic freedom. As I explained in this post, a university intent on imposing ideological orthodoxy can simply exclude dissenters at the entry level hiring stage or at the point of promotion to tenure. Although I'm happy to be tenured, I still doubt that the small increment of extra protection for academic freedom provided by tenure is worth the immense costs noted by Fukuyama and other critics. UPDATE: As a preemptive response to accusations of hypocrisy ("How can you accept the benefits of tenure if you're opposed to it?"), I cite my post on the ethics of benefiting from policies that you oppose.