Yale too sluggish on tenure reform

By Sangeetha Ramaswamy

Why does Yale always play catch-up? Athletics: Princeton and Harvard strengthened their athletic recruiting, Yale followed. Financial aid: Princeton changed its aid policy, Yale followed. And now, tenure reform: Harvard plans to double the number of tenured women and minorities, and Yale, I'm sure, will follow--though it may be many years down the line.

Yale is like a sleeping giant, a fantastic monolith that has to be shaken and pestered to make institutional reforms. Years down the road it does so, rudely awakened and frazzled despite its awesome presence. Some would dub the University's actions conservative, which is just a polite way of saying that the Administration is dwelling complacently in the glory days of old Yale.

Tenure reform deserves more prominence on modern Yale's agenda than it currently receives. How does tenure work at Yale today? In meetings reminiscent of the days when party bosses nominated candidates in smoke-filled rooms, a department mulls over the fate of a junior faculty member. The decision is then handed over to a separate committee. It would be unfair to say that the system absolutely doesn't work; Yale's tenured professors are true authorities in their disciplines who also make themselves accessible to students. However, the current system does not permit the University's faculty to expand to include the brightest members of all segments of the world's population.

Expansion represents the heart of the tenure controversy. Tenure reform is not about making a few token gestures towards women and minorities so that the admissions office can add more photos to its brochure depicting Yale's diversity. Every group of people, whether women, blacks, Chicanos, or white males, has its intellectuals. Every country in the world, whether Uruguay, Zimbabwe, or Germany, has its academics. Yale needs to expand. The University must attract the best scholars of all groups to truly service its students, to give them a sophisticated education and to establish their institution's position in the eyes of the world.

While the Administration agrees that tenure reform is needed, it is clear that the University doesn't consider it to be a pressing problem. But as Yale delays, its graduating classes are exposed only to the limited perspectives of a primarily white male faculty.

Yale's student body is far more diverse than its faculty because theUniversity sends a strong signal that minority students are wanted here. On the other hand, Yale does not actively recruit and tenure female and minority faculty. Even with the lifting of the faculty hiring freeze, the only departments that can even add positions are political science and biology. Women and minority scholars, though passionate about their academic work, won't come to a school that doesn't show interest in--or have room for--them.

Yale's endowment stands at $6 billion, but the University spends only afraction of that annually. In a Sun., Aug 2 New York Times article, law school professor Henry Hansmann, an expert on economics and law of nonprofit institutions, said of the endowment, "Saving is worthwhile only if you have a better use for the money in the future than you do now. With universities, there is no particular reason to believe that there will be a better use in the future." Yale should delegate a separate fund specifically for tenuring female and minority professors.

A university's purpose is to promote the exchange of ideas, whether in the courtyard, the classroom, or a professor's office. Nobody wants to spend their time exchanging ideas with the same group of people. Yale needs to realize this and take action before it is forced, once again, to play catch-up.

Sangeetha Ramaswamy is a sophomore in Berkeley.

Back to Opinion...