Conservatives on Tenure
From Zanecorpwiki
"Texas Policy Cast 2011-06-30 "The Faculty Lounges". This one annoys be because I just recommended Texas Policy Cast to a friend. I generally don't agree, but do like to listen to the politicians talk. When they step outside of politics and try to get fact based, it's usually bad news...
Naomi Schaefer Riley says, "Tenure was supposed to protect academic freedom... One thing you have to consider in this question is the changing landscape in higher education. Many of our professors are involved in teaching introductory subjects, many teach remedial subjects... So the idea that if someone is teaching introductory class to business administration that you have to protect their ability to say controversial things seems a little ridiculous." (ends at 3:54) Then just over 60 seconds later (5:06) "[Tenured professors] have basically decided they're too important to be teaching undergraduate classes. What the universities have done to make up for this fact is hire adjunct professors [without tenure]."
I'm not really a fan of tenure myself, but it really annoys me when people can't put two thoughts together. The claim is that we don't need tenure because most professors don't teach anything controversial. She then entirely undermines her own point. This was not a hostile interview. This was a series of softball questions most likely worked out in advance so that Naomi can give the narrative she wants to give. This is *the best* job she can do, and she can't manage to avoid undermining her own arguments? This is the bests expert they can find?
How can I trust anything being said when you've just told me that the thing you said a minute ago isn't true? You're undermining your own arguments for gods sake.
I can argue against tenure better than this.
The problem, and I see this a lot with naive logicians and rational-ish thought... the temptation to just heap on arguments. The problem is in all that heaping, it's very likely you're going to throw some shit into the mix. Even if the rest of the argument is good (and she does make good points), you've now lost credibility. It's childish to complain that people ignore all your good points when you give them an argument with self-defeating points. We don't say, "Well, the other boxer would have won if the first guy had never knocked him out." You can't keep putting up own goals and blaming your loss on the other team. Get serious.
