In this post, we’d like to tackle one of the elephants in the room: tenure. At this point, it is unclear what the status of this negotiation point is. There were some indications that tenure was on the table during a previous PDC; however, the most updated communications state that the starting point for the current PDC is the December 23, 2021 memo, which does not include tenure.
We should also note that the latest information on tenure includes a note that “permanence” (i.e., what the teaching stream would get instead of tenure) “must be codified to be identical to tenure”. The obvious question of why we’d bother having two terminologies that are meant to be “identical” goes unanswered. Why choose two similar terms when just one will do? Not only that, all policies that currently include the word “tenure” would have to be updated to also address or include permanence. Why go through this extra trouble and work?
It’s important to have some open and frank discussions on what’s at stake when we talk about tenure. We firmly believe that tenure should be back on the table for these new negotiations and is something worth fighting for.
What does tenure mean at UW?
Since we’re examining the question of tenure at the UW level, we will refer to Policy 77, which has statements on tenure that we cite in full:
Tenure is meant to provide institutional support for academic freedom (see the Article on Academic Freedom in the Memorandum of Agreement between the University and the Faculty Association). The pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and the attainment of understanding through scholarship and teaching, which are essential functions of a university, occur best in an atmosphere in which free inquiry and discussion are fostered. Free inquiry may at times bring a faculty member into conflict with society, governments or the University itself. Tenure provides security of employment against pressures that might arise from such conflicts, in the belief that the University and society at large benefit from honest judgments and independent criticisms rendered by scholars who are free from fear of possible consequences that might arise from giving offense to powerful individuals or groups.
Tenure provides stability for both individual faculty members and the University. Tenure provides a faculty member with an environment conducive to long-term scholarly work. The University, for its part, is assured of a continuing group of teachers and scholars committed to the University, around which it can plan and from whom it can draw its academic leadership.
They key points, by the university’s own definition, are that:
1. Tenure provides support and security for academic freedom
2. Tenure provides stability for both faculty members and for the university
In our humble opinion, these points should apply equally to Lecturers as they currently do to tenure-track Professors. As we know, Lecturers engage in all of the activities described above and that merit full academic freedom protections. The fact that this is not currently the case is one of many examples of inequities that exist across the different streams or ranks. The ongoing policy negotiations offer a mechanism to rectify this inequity and to put all faculty members on equal footing when it comes to academic freedom and stability.
What about the MoA?
A common argument is that even though Lecturers don’t have tenure, our right to academic freedom is codified in the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), regardless of whether or not we have tenure. Which raises the question of why have tenure at all? That is, if academic freedom protections in the MoA are (allegedly) sufficient, then surely tenure itself is redundant and our tenure-track colleagues would be happy to give it up.
It’s also worth noting that at last year’s Fall General Meeting, a Lecturer raised the question of whether legal counsel had been consulted on the finer details of tenure vis a vis academic freedom. As far as we know, this concern has not been addressed and therefore we have no formal legal opinion on the use of “permanence” vs “tenure”.
Shelving those trains of thought for the moment, let’s take a look at a particularly relevant passage from the MoA’s articles on academic freedom:
“As academic freedom will wither and die unless the university community as a whole is committed to it, the University and the Association agree to support and defend academic freedom at the University of Waterloo.” (MoA 6.3)
Now, if by definition in P77 “Tenure is meant to provide institutional support for academic freedom” and there is mutual agreement to “support and defend academic freedom”, then it follows that extending tenure protections to Lecturers is the only logical thing for both sides to do if they are truly committed to academic freedom. Why, then, do we as Lecturers find ourselves having to justify what is self-evident to both the administration and to our colleagues?
What do Lecturers think about tenure?
So, what’s in a name? If you ask Lecturers about tenure, the name is important: based on a 2021 survey of Lecturers which had an 80% response rate, 62% of respondents answered that tenure is “very important”, and 28% answered that tenure is “important”. Just try to get three random Lecturers to agree on anything, and you’ll understand how significant it is for 90% of Lecturers to agree on the same thing.
We already know and understand that equity, job security, and protections to be innovative in the classroom improve our performance/practice and result in better education for our students. We also understand how tenure is often used as a wedge to keep Lecturer and tenure-track positions separate and can entrench the feeling of second-class citizenship status for Lecturers. Who benefits from the current differences and inequities?
The current policy negotiations offer a rare, golden opportunity to close an important equity gap between tenured faculty and Lecturers. As a minority group, how much of a say do we really have in the debate of tenure versus permanence? When will those in power listen to us?
Comments