He has a “bold” new plan to get rid of tenure. All you need to know is how he begins: “If you were the C.E.O. of a company and the board of directors said” to hire someone for life….
Well perhaps Mark Taylor has a brilliant idea about how to run a private, for-profit “university” like the University of Phoenix. But I doubt it. I have an idea, based upon his religious reading of Derrida (he’s an atheist Jew—close enough to Christian messianist!), that it’s probably not the case. This is dangerous: at a time when we face an onslaught of those who want to put up community colleges for sale to the highest bidder, to offer less to students at far more cost, this is not what we need.
But more pertinently, what does Mark C. Taylor know about corporations? In my early 20s, I made a living for a bit writing on economics and corporate M&As as a I was paying my way through school. So I actually think I might have a minor expertise in how businesses operate—not the mythic ones Taylor thinks about while picking the lint from his armchair. Maybe a business would do the very thing Taylor says they wouldn’t, the same way they provide multi-million dollar golden parachutes to people who are leaving the company (beyond what is contractual and beyond what would be needed to pay “qualified” CEOs). Maybe they wouldn’t. But does Mark Taylor know this?
No he doesn’t. More than that, he doesn’t know the difference between the fiduciary responsibilities of for-profit companies and not-for-profit private organizations (i.e., private universities), let alone state universities. It needs to be said: this man has no idea what he’s talking about. Read his post (linked above).
No need to go all leftist on him. Just think about his use of the word “intellectual liquidity” (you know, like “capital liquidity,” get it?) and how that is a buzzword looking for any sense at all and you’ll get the idea.
“No need to go all leftist on him. Just think about his use of the word ‘intellectual liquidity’ (you know, like ‘capital liquidity, get it?) and how that is a buzzword looking for any sense at all and you’ll get the idea.”
well said (form someone who also has no idea how business works, but at least I have a degree in economics. that’s worth something, right? oh. wait. no it isn’t.)
I was so annoyed by this article yesterday it rendered me speechless (not in the “cool” a/theological way mind you). Today, it just mildly annoys me. Sigh. Although I can’t figure out if it’s because Taylor’s assessment is simply (1) naive (as you point out) and/or it’s because (2) McT’s logic–at least to me–seems to rest ultimately on a basic outcomes assessment scheme that he’s simply dressed up with meaningless jargon, be it “networks,” “facebook generation,” “innovation,” or “technology.” Hmm..educational value tied to “liquidity.” Right then. Tenure–in many “debates” like this–is nothing more than a red herring. For a good while now, higher ed, and this includes both public and private institutions, has been subject to all sorts of “creative re-thinking” which insists education is nothing more than a commodity that has to be thought, updated, and rethought to meet the demands of a changing demographic and yes, perform well in the marketplace. Yet, whenever something does come along that’s actually innovative in higher ed it’s flushed down the toilet and we’re accused of being out of touch with the “traditional core curriculum.” An aside. Recently I was in a meeting about “globalizing the curriculum” to which one of the Regents responded, “Hey–wait a minute, don’t we need to “Americanize” the curriculum.” Seriously-and these dopes sign my paycheck.
Anyway, before this turns into much more of a rant, there were a few comments that show how deep McT’s incomprehension of higher ed really is. I’ll just draw attention to one: “..in almost 40 years of teaching, I have not known a single person who has been more willing to speak out after tenure than before.”
Clearly, I’ve been working at the wrong college or my concept of self-preservation needs to be re-calibrated.
Interestingly, Taylor was the only writer that neglected to discuss the issue of contingent labor, just saying.
Good points…Implicitly, he wants all labor “contingent.” Now, of course, he’s going to call for better salaries and such, but that’s what he means by “intellectual liquidity.”
Quite right. And your reference to U of Phx below is a good one (see here: http://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/the-repo-man-comes-to-campus/). While Taylor may have a valid point about the tenure clock stifling creativity, this business of “intellectual liquidity as oversight,” in my view, is a half step away from reducing our authority to that of piece-meal workers assembling whatever has been weaved together as the grand vision of all possible knowledge according to operational definitions cooked up as the common chassis that all the Fords will run on in this class of vehicles –i.e., we’ll have what’s already at work at for-profits and is creeping into the logic of a good many cc’s, sweatshop teaching, and we’ll function with the intellectual authority of 5th grade science teachers, just “at a different level.” It’s probably not fair for me to pin this all on Taylor’s comments, however, Taylor should know better, one would think.
The “liquidity” canard demonstrates PRECISELY why tenure is a GOOD idea: to keep humans safe from IDIOCY such as this.
And there’s definitely an element of pulling up the ladder after him… Living in CA, you know this: I can’t go two feet on the highway without seeing another U. of Phoenix sign. They don’t have tenure; they are liquid; the students are being ripped-off. But it says “Bold” in the title of his book on this, so it has to be good…
Mark C. Taylor has been wrong on many things lately, this is just the most recent example of why scholars like him should stick with what they know best (whatever that thing is for Taylor, I think he’s on a mission to write a book about everything).
It’s rather annoying that folks like Taylor are the ones suggesting the end of tenure, having greatly benefited from it in the past – all of a sudden, it should be a constant competition, as though the academy is just not competitive enough and stressful enough already.
Sadly though, looking at number of TT positions that are replaced with contingent labor, it’s not looking good even without Taylor’s contribution.
This particular strategy isn’t very new for Taylor, though, having previously argued that graduate programs as a whole are a waste of time – himself, of course, having received a PhD from Harvard. But if I’m not mistaken, he made that argument while he was still at Williams, where he didn’t have any grad students. Presumably he does at Columbia, so that refrain must have become old quickly.
What I cannot understand is why Taylor thinks that contract renewal ever 7 years will result in better, more qualified, and more “relevant” faculty receiving and retaining positions, rather than the contrary. Being in Texas and having to deal with the recently implemented HB2504, which in a bid to increase “transparency” in state schools is (at least running the risk of) moving the locus of judgment regarding qualification and relevance farther away from those with the expertise to make such judgments, this is the aspect of his proposal that I find most ridiculous.
Yes, true on all counts. I stopped myself from writing too much on it since I think it’s clear he doesn’t understand himself, and thus working to figure it out isn’t worth it.