[81alum]

College tenure was created in part because of Stanford....in a bad way.  Jane fired Professor Edward Ross for his political leanings and this was one of the famous cases that spurred the creation of the AAUP and the creation of tenure in the United States, enshrined in the famous statement of 1915: 

the scholar has professional functions to perform in which the appointing authorities have neither competency nor moral right to intervene. The responsibility of the university teacher is primarily to the public itself, and to the judgment of his own profession;

Too many people today, including faculty, think of tenure as a form of compensation.  A less remarked side effect of tenure is that it has has allowed educational entities to pay  faculty far less than similarly educated professionals like doctors and lawyers--by holding out the benefit of potential job security.  But longevity of employment was not the original purpose--it was the protection of academic freedom.  Faculty in the 19th C were often fired for their political views or simply at the whim of a President or a Board.  Especially in the Social Sciences, this dramatically retards research by creating a chilling effect on inquiry--even if you are not under direct threat, you will construct your research in a way to avoid potential clashes with those in authority.  If you want a more recent example of what results with a lack of academic freedom and the tenure that is necessary to protect it--just look at the productivity of Soviet scholars before the breakup of the USSR. 

I have absolutely no doubt that if the ilk of Mr. Chelgren got their way and eliminated tenure, they would next return his state to the 19th century and start firing those ""liberal" faculty whose research contradicted their own views.  All those atmospheric scientists and oceanographers that study global warming might be first in line. 

As for separating teaching tracks from research tracks--I heartily agree.  I am sad to say that the vast majority of my colleagues would not.  My favorite quote on this subject is from the great Max Weber, in Science as a Vocation:

Every young man who feels called to scholarship has to realize clearly that the task before him has a double aspect. He must qualify not only as a scholar but also as a teacher. And the two do not at all coincide. One can be a preeminent scholar and at the same time an abominably poor teacher. May I remind you of the teaching of men like Helmholtz or Ranke; and they are not by any chance rare exceptions.

That is very cutting for poor Professors Helmholtz and Ranke!

[81alum]

College tenure was created in part because of Stanford....in a bad way.  Jane fired Professor Edward Ross for his political leanings and this was one of the famous cases that spurred the creation of the AAUP and the creation of tenure in the United States, enshrined in the famous statement of 1915: 

the scholar has professional functions to perform in which the appointing authorities have neither competency nor moral right to intervene. The responsibility of the university teacher is primarily to the public itself, and to the judgment of his own profession;

Too many people today, including faculty, think of tenure as a form of compensation.  A less remarked side effect of tenure is that it has has allowed educational entities to pay  faculty far less than similarly educated professionals like doctors and lawyers--by holding out the benefit of potential job security.  But longevity of employment was not the original purpose--it was the protection of academic freedom.  Faculty in the 19th C were often fired for their political views or simply at the whim of a President or a Board.  Especially in the Social Sciences, this dramatically retards research by creating a chilling effect on inquiry--even if you are not under direct threat, you will construct your research in a way to avoid potential clashes with those in authority.  If you want a more recent example of what results with a lack of academic freedom and the tenure that is necessary to protect it--just look at the productivity of Soviet scholars before the breakup of the USSR. 

I have absolutely no doubt that if the ilk of Mr. Chelgren got their way and eliminated tenure, they would next return his state to the 19th century and start firing those ""liberal" faculty whose research contradicted their own views.  All those atmospheric scientists and oceanographers that study global warming might be first in line. 

As for separating teaching tracks from research tracks--I heartily agree.  I am sad to say that the vast majority of my colleagues would not.  My favorite quote on this subject is from the great Max Weber, in Science as a Vocation:

Every young man who feels called to scholarship has to realize clearly that the task before him has a double aspect. He must qualify not only as a scholar but also as a teacher. And the two do not at all coincide. One can be a preeminent scholar and at the same time an abominably poor teacher. May I remind you of the teaching of men like Helmholtz or Ranke; and they are not by any chance rare exceptions.

That is very cutting for poor Professors Helmholtz and Ranke!