logo
Behind the turmoil of federal attacks on colleges, some states are going after tenure

Behind the turmoil of federal attacks on colleges, some states are going after tenure

Miami Herald18-06-2025
HONOLULU - The "gravy train." That's what a Hawai'i state senator called the practice of awarding tenure to university research faculty when she proposed legislation stripping this long-standing form of job protection from them.
The bill got little notice at the time. Now, obscured by the turmoil of the many other challenges to higher education since the start of Donald Trump's second presidential term, tenure has come under siege in states across the country.
Never in the 110-year history of tenure in the United States have there been so many attempts to gut or reconfigure it, said Julie Reuben, a professor of the history of American education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
At least 11 states, including seven since the start of this year, have imposed new levels of review for tenured faculty, made it easier to fire them or proposed banning tenure altogether. Almost all have Republican-controlled legislatures or have seen lawmakers question what is being taught on campuses.
This comes at the same time as, but has gotten less attention than, the Trump administration's higher education funding cuts and investigations into colleges and universities.
"It's the flip side of the same assault," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, or AFT, which represents 400,000 faculty and other university and college employees. "Some of the assault is coming from taking away grants, and some of the assault is coming by taking away tenure."
Unlike nontenured faculty, who can be dismissed or not reappointed, tenured faculty have more protections - including from being demoted or fired for what they think or say.
Without tenure, "If you pursue the truth in ways that are uncomfortable for donors, for students, for trustees, for the state legislature, then you'll lose your job," said Mark Criley, senior program officer for academic freedom, tenure and governance at the faculty union the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP.
Even before the second Trump administration and this wave of tenure challenges, 45 percent of faculty members said they had refrained from expressing an opinion they feared could attract negative attention, according to a survey conducted for the AAUP and the American Association of Colleges and Universities by the University of Chicago research organization NORC, and released in January. About a third of faculty nationwide have tenure or are on the tenure track, according to AAUP.
Most backers of curtailing tenure say they're not doing it for ideological reasons. They say they're trying to lower costs for taxpayers and consumers by removing faculty whose productivity is low.
The goal is "getting rid of professors who are not pulling their weight," said Nebraska state Sen. Loren Lippincott, a Republican and sponsor of a proposal to abolish tenure altogether for new hires at public colleges and universities in that state and replace it with annual performance reviews.
He hears stories "of professors that have tenure bragging about how little they work, how little they put in or how few hours they show up to teach classes," Lippincott said at a public hearing about the bill.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
In other states, however, curbs on tenure have been linked directly or indirectly to faculty political views.
An Ohio bill passed in late March will subject tenured faculty to annual evaluations - including student responses to the question "Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender and religious bias?" - and allow them to be fired for poor reviews. It was part of a controversial larger higher education bill whose mission is "to enhance diversity of thought, which I don't believe we have at most of our universities today," said Republican state Sen. Jerry Cirino, its Senate sponsor.
Over the governor's veto, the Republican-dominated Kentucky General Assembly in March passed a bill requiring that faculty be reviewed at least once every four years and allowing the firing of any professor who fails to meet performance and productivity requirements, even if they're tenured.
Sponsors said the measure will uphold performance standards, but Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, contended in his veto message that it "threatens academic freedom" in "a time of increased federal encroachment" into how colleges and universities are run.
After faculty at the University of Texas at Austin signed a resolution in 2022 affirming their right to teach such subjects as race and gender theory, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed to end tenure altogether for newly hired faculty and strip it from existing faculty who teach critical race theory.
A legislative proposal in Texas the following year failed to eliminate tenure, but broadened the grounds on which it could be revoked, mandated regular performance reviews of tenured faculty under a process it left up to governing boards to determine, and made it easier for those governing boards to fire tenured faculty.
In Indiana, a measure added to a 232-page budget bill two days before the legislative session ended in April, imposed "productivity reviews" on tenured faculty at that state's public universities, measuring the number of classes taught, the amount of research conducted and other tasks. Faculty members who are judged to have fallen short of standards can be fired.
This follows a law passed last year in Indiana requiring reviews of tenured faculty and denying tenure or promotion to faculty members who are "unlikely to foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity." The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to block enforcement of this law, saying it violates faculty members' rights to free speech and due process. The suit was dismissed for jurisdictional reasons but has been re-filed and a ruling is pending.
Related: Fewer students and fewer dollars mean states face closing public universities and colleges
Arkansas legislators passed a law in March allowing university administrators to call for an immediate review of tenured faculty at any time and to fire them or remove their tenure status. North Dakota's governor signed a bill in April requiring post-tenure reviews at least every five years. Utah lawmakers last year imposed annual performance reviews of tenured faculty that include student evaluations. And a proposal this year to get rid of tenure in Kansas narrowly failed.
There have been earlier attempts to weaken or ban tenure in Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia, according to research conducted at the University of North Texas.
Tenure was established in the United States in 1915 just after the founding of the AAUP. Once awarded tenure, the association pronounced, a faculty member should be terminated only for cause or because of a financial emergency, a decision it said should be made by a committee consisting of fellow faculty and the institution's governing board.
The move was largely a response to firings around that time of university and college faculty for teaching the theory of evolution, said Reuben, the Harvard historian.
"Faculty had to be able to have the freedom to ask questions, and they could not be tied down to any sort of intellectual test imposed by church dogma or political parties," Reuben said.
Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more
Momentum for removing this protection comes against a backdrop of falling trust in colleges and universities and of the people who work at them.
Only about a third of Americans have "a great deal" or "a lot" of confidence in higher education, down from 57 percent in 2015, a Gallup poll found last year. College professors now rank below doctors, teachers, retail workers and construction workers among people Americans believe "contribute to the general good of society," a 2021 survey by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences found; only 40 percent of respondents, in that poll, said professors contribute "a lot" to the greater good.
Only a little more than a third of Republicans believe university professors act in the best interests of the public, according to another survey, by the Survey Center on American Life.
"This level of attack couldn't gain the kind of momentum it has without the declining public support for higher education," Reuben said. "It couldn't have happened to this magnitude before, because there was a general sense that higher education was good for society."
In Hawai'i, it was a fiscally conservative Democrat, state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, who pushed, beginning in 2022, for tenure to be banned for University of Hawai'i faculty who do research and other jobs besides teaching, such as providing student support. Although she did not respond to repeated requests for comment, Kim has written that the effort was a way to make sure taxpayer and student tuition money given to the university was being "prudently spent."
After hundreds of faculty protested, she agreed to a compromise under which the university has set up a task force to study its tenure procedures.
Related: A battle at one university is a case study in why higher education is so slow to change
"To me, it's about the Senate wanting control over the university," said Christian Fern, executive director of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, or UHPA, the faculty union.
"Being able to teach without political retribution - which rings really loudly right now - do you want to have a faculty member able to teach what they learned in their research, even if it's politically incorrect?" Fern asked. "I think yes."
Karla Hayashi, president of the board of the UHPA and a former lecturer and English composition professor who now runs a tutoring center at the University of Hawai'i at Hilo, said she expects more attempts to weaken tenure. Hayashi sees them as an extension of political pressure that starts at the federal level.
"If I take away your tenure, then you're dependent on doing what I want you to do to earn your living," she said.
Contrary to arguments from critics, tenure "is not a job for life," Criley, of the AAUP, said. "It's a guarantee that you'll only be dismissed for cause when a case can be made that you're not fit for your professional duties - that you're negligent, incompetent or guilty of some sort of misconduct that violates professional ethics."
Related: A case study of what's ahead with Trump DEI crackdowns
Not all faculty agree that tenure is fine the way it is.
"If your main goal is job security, I don't think you're going to be that adventuresome of a professor," said Jim Wetherbe, a professor in the business department at Texas Tech University and a longtime critic of tenure, who has turned it down every time it has been offered to him.
Academic freedom at public universities is already protected by the First Amendment, Wetherbe has argued.
But Weingarten, the AFT head, said the immediate worry is that what faculty can say or teach will be narrowed.
"The right wing keeps talking about free speech, free speech, free speech, and an attack on tenure is an attack on free speech," she said. "It's basically an attempt to create compliance."
Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, jmarcus@hechingerreport.orgorjpm.82 on Signal.
This story about tenure was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.
The post Behind the turmoil of federal attacks on colleges, some states are going after tenure appeared first on The Hechinger Report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lara Trump skips North Carolina US Senate race, clears way for Cooper versus Whatley
Lara Trump skips North Carolina US Senate race, clears way for Cooper versus Whatley

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Lara Trump skips North Carolina US Senate race, clears way for Cooper versus Whatley

By Richard Cowan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump's daughter-in-law Lara Trump on Thursday said she would not run for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina next year, setting the stage for an expected matchup of former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and North Carolina will be the site of one of the half-dozen most competitive races in next year's midterm elections, following Republican Thom Tillis' decision not to seek reelection. "After much consideration and heartfelt discussions with my family, friends, and supporters, I have decided not to pursue the United States Senate seat in North Carolina at this time," Lara Trump said in a posting on X on Thursday. Multiple U.S. media outlets, citing unnamed sources, have reported that Whatley and Cooper intend to enter the race. The two could not be reached for comment on Thursday. North Carolina is one of six Senate races that are seen as competitive by political analysts. The other five are in Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. Democrats face an uphill battle in capturing control of the chamber, as they would need to defend seats in Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire where incumbents are retiring and flip at least four Republican-held seats for a majority. They are seen as having better odds of capturing the House of Representatives, though efforts underway in heavily Republican Texas to redraw district lines could dim their chances in that chamber as well. Tillis opted not to seek reelection after drawing Trump's ire for voting against a sweeping tax-cut bill that will cut Medicaid funding. That may have provided Democrats with the ammunition to help sway the state's rural voters. "It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities," Tillis said of the massive bill the Senate passed on July 1. Cooper also blasted the bill in a July 3 posting on social media, saying that it hurt "working families, seniors, children and veterans so those at the top can have big tax breaks." On Monday, in his role as Republican National Committee head, Whatley posted criticism on social media of Representative Abigail Spanberger, the Democrat running for governor of Virginia this year. His missive might provide a hint on how a head-to-head matchup with Cooper might look. "She's an open-borders, pro-DEI, radical leftist who put America last in Congress and would do the same if she's elected as governor," Whatley said of Spanberger.

Trump signs executive order to rein in ‘chaotic' influence of money on college sports
Trump signs executive order to rein in ‘chaotic' influence of money on college sports

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump signs executive order to rein in ‘chaotic' influence of money on college sports

Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order prohibiting 'third-party, pay-for-play' payments to college athletes, a move the White House says is intended to curb the booster-funded bidding wars that have upended the landscape of college sports in recent years. The order asserts that recent court rulings and a patchwork of conflicting state laws have dismantled long-standing NCAA rules, creating what it describes as a 'chaotic environment' that threatens the financial stability and competitive balance of collegiate athletics. Related: Why female athletes are challenging the NCAA's $2.8bn settlement It marks the most aggressive federal intervention yet in response to the rapid commercialization of college sports, particularly in football and men's basketball, where top programs now spend tens of millions of dollars to attract and retain athletes through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals. Under the new directive, schools would be expected to eliminate any third-party NIL payments used as recruiting inducements, while still allowing fair-market compensation for legitimate services such as brand endorsements. The order also seeks to protect women's and non-revenue sports, directing athletic departments to preserve – and in some cases expand – scholarship opportunities and roster spots in programs that don't generate significant revenue. Starting with the 2025–26 academic year, schools with more than $125m in athletic revenue are urged to increase their investment in non-revenue sports, while schools with $50m or more are required to maintain existing levels. The president's order points to growing disparities fueled by state-level legislation, including the more than 30 states that have passed NIL laws, and warns that the resulting imbalance has created an 'oligarchy' of wealthier programs that can simply outbid rivals for the best players. It also cites rising concerns that runaway NIL spending is draining resources from Olympic and educational sports that form the foundation of America's athletic system. 'Absent guardrails to stop the madness,' the order reads, 'many college sports will soon cease to exist.' In addition to targeting NIL abuses, the executive order: Calls on the Department of Education, the FTC, and the Department of Justice to develop enforcement and regulatory plans within 30 days Directs the Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes in ways that prioritize educational benefits Instructs federal agencies to use Title IX enforcement, funding decisions, and litigation strategy to protect the long-term viability of college athletics Encourages collaboration with Congress and state governments to advance a national framework The order highlights the outsized role that college athletics play in US Olympic success, noting that 75% of athletes on the 2024 Olympic team were current or former collegiate athletes, and argues that preserving a broad base of non-revenue sports is essential to maintaining America's international dominance. While the order outlines sweeping federal priorities, it remains unclear how many of its provisions will be implemented in practice, particularly in the absence of new legislation. Still, the White House insists the move is necessary to restore fairness and stability to a system that it describes as 'drifting toward professionalization'. 'College sports are not, and should not be, professional sports,' the order declares. 'A national solution is urgently needed before it's too late.'

Cut 'Em Loose With No Government Props
Cut 'Em Loose With No Government Props

Forbes

time7 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Cut 'Em Loose With No Government Props

(CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images) CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images The Trump Administration is seriously considering privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's long past time that it did this. The business of these two giants is to bundle and sell mortgages to investors with a government guarantee. That is, investors are covered if there are losses because of homeowner defaults. Washington, via the Federal Housing Finance Agency, took control of both entities in 2008 because of their massive losses. The seizures were called 'conservatorships.' The takeover was supposed to be temporary, yet here we are nearly a generation later, and the conservatorships are still intact. Fannie and Freddie are the elephants in the housing market, backing some $7 trillion in mortgages. They have an eye-popping line of credit with the Treasury Department of $254 billion. They charge a so-called guarantee fee of around two-thirds of 1% on each mortgage. Fannie tends to work with larger financial institutions, while Freddie goes with smaller ones. It's a nice business. As President Trump noted, they are gushing cash. Trumpites estimate the market cap of these two monsters would be $330 billion, with the government's share coming to more than $250 billion. In these times of rivers of red ink in Washington, the prospect of getting that much cash without raising taxes should be irresistible. The two got into trouble because they went heavily into debt. Why not, they figured. The higher the leverage, the bigger the profits, which shareholders loved. They could borrow at rock-bottom interest rates because there was an implicit government guarantee. It wasn't written into law, but the markets figured Uncle Sam would come to the rescue if there were trouble. That ar-rived with the financial crisis that began in 2007, when the housing market was imploding. Washington stepped in. But shareholders were largely wiped out. What made the two particularly complacent was their extraordinary political muscle, especially Fannie Mae's. They made sure every member of Congress learned how important they were to constituents involved in local housing markets. And jobs were to be had for congressional relatives and friends. The challenges of pushing Fannie and Freddie out of the Washington nest are real, but that shouldn't deter the move. Critics say changing the status quo will raise mortgage rates, a particularly sensitive topic at a time when housing affordability is a big issue. If Fannie and Freddie are to be truly private companies, they'll need higher profits, which could lead to more expensive mortgages. Guarantee fees for mortgages would also likely go up. This is why the Trump Administration doesn't want to do away with guarantees, implicit or explicit. But this would put Fannie and Freddie back where they were when they got in trouble. If there are any guarantees, the two monsters should have to pay Uncle Sam realistic insurance fees, which would run into the tens of billions of dollars. Critics underestimate the power of competition. Instead, the two enterprises should be broken up. Competition works. As for mortgage rates, the problem is the Federal Reserve, whose ignorance of inflation is keeping the cost ofmoney unnecessarily high.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store