The justification for tenure was, and remains, a political one. One key function of academic institutions in a free, democratic society, is to speak truth to power. More specifically, one job of academics is to explore a variety of issues and opinions from a relatively impartial and objective viewpoint. If some of society's cherished shibboleths turn out to be unsupported by the evidence; or if, conversely, unpopular opinions have more rational justification, then, as the old saying goes, "let the chips fall where they may." This line of argument, which was made by Kant in the eighteenth century, provides academics with tenure because that is the only way they can perform one of their social roles: sorting out good and bad opinions so that social policies and individual actions can be based upon rational beliefs and values. Assuming that democracy functions best when rational opinions promote enlightened policies, the justification of tenure has some support in its favor.

Current efforts to effectively eliminate tenure fall into two categories: economic and political. The former boils down to the need for cheap labor with no job security or pensions, i.e., a cost-efficient work force. Here the new corporate world order has filtered into the new university corporate order.

The second factor, the political, is aimed at stifling academic freedom. Those who want to eliminate tenure have recently claimed that academic freedom can be preserved without tenure. In principle, perhaps; but under present conditions, I rather doubt it.

Who stands to benefit politically from the stifling of academic freedom (which only tenure seems to guarantee)?

Among the groups who stand to benefit from the stifling of academic freedom are advocates of the corporate university, who don't want anybody raising objections to corporate sponsored research or a host of other things. (At the University of Minnesota, one result of the loss of tenure would have been to allow faculty members to be dismissed for raising any question about the corporate university for which they work.)

Second, many advocates of political correctness, on both the political Left and Right, would like to see freedom of expression stifled, and would like to fire faculty for having views, or even discussing views, that the moral police of the Left and Right do not like. Given the current climate, I rather doubt that these forces would stand for what they deem politically unacceptable speech or scholarship if tenure did not stand in their way. We clearly do not live at a time when the academic ethos of liberal-democratic scholarship is an ideal that most people, even within the university, care about or feel is needed.

Aside from economic reasons for eliminating tenure (and I am not convinced we are as bad off financially as we are sometimes led to believe), the only argument I have heard that is worth some serious consideration is that tenured faculty deny untenured faculty academic freedom. I don't know if this is true; or, if it is, to what extent it is. But this is no more reason to destroy tenure (in the name of academic freedom!) than is the fact that some tenured faculty are taking advantage of job security by not being productive. Both situations can be dealt with without destroying tenure (or academic freedom).

The real power behind the push to eliminate tenure does not come from citizens concerned about the rather insubstantial practical complications associated with tenure. Rather, it comes from those who have a vested interest in eliminating the ability of faculty to speak out on controversial issues. The elimination of tenure will silence voices of dissent, and our democracy will suffer as a consequence. These are the terms on which the debate on tenure must be argued, for only if we understand the value and purpose of tenure will we be able to see clearly how much we all stand to lose if it is eliminated.