According to the lead article in the April 4 Inside Iowa State, the plenary speaker at the Faculty Conference at Grinnell, Richard Chait, objected to the "guaranteed lifetime security" of tenure on the grounds that "many a lay person" perceives it "as an inexplicable anachronism at best, and an arrogant offense at worse." Chait calls tenure a "public relations problem" since "citizens at-large" view the professoriate "as hypersensitive and privileged."

Whoa, hoss. Speaking of hypersensitive, I have yet to hear a groundswell of protest against tenure from the "citizens at-large." I take offense at the arrogance of bringing in an "expert," from Harvard no less, to a faculty conference arranged and paid for by the Provost's Office to soften up the rhetorical landscape for what from my vantage points feels like a two-pronged assault: first on tenure; followed by the deepening exploitation of part-time, temporary, and graduate student labor. I have heard something of a groundswell of complaint from citizens at large against that last practice, and I think they have got a good point.

This "expert" has made a name for himself as a "consultant" to the boards of regents in Arizona and Minnesota. While his concern for "many a layperson" sounds noble enough, I suggest you ask "cui bono?" Who profits if the argument against tenure prevails? Certainly not the average layperson with children to educate and bills to pay in an increasingly predatory "global economy." The "inexplicable anachronism" of tenure is the source and the protection of academic freedom, which sustains free speech in the larger society. When layfolk begin to take offense at one segment of the population having the guaranteed privilege of speaking out against the high-jacking of the economy by vested interests, that will be soon enough to start the assault on tenure.

Perhaps the "alternative arrangements to the tenure system" President Jischke has in mind will appeal to the eager quislings among us, but I am less sanguine.

Give me a #2 pencil and a copy of the budget, and I'll relieve some of the financial pressure that is inexorably forcing this irresistible change. My first innovation will be to take all salary monies over $100,000 per individual and put the cash back into the general budget. Any state employee who can't get by on $100,000 a year can resign. I'm sure I won't have any trouble replacing them with intelligent, dedicated professionals who can manage to live on $100,000 a year and to get done the job that our present crop of high-priced, market-driven administrators, over-privileged and perked to the max, can't seem to manage.