October 2, 1996
The faculty, administration and Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota must resolve their deep differences over academic tenure. The resolution must involve compromise by all concerned. The university would be harmed if the regents were to capitulate to pressure that they withdraw their recent tenure proposal in its entirety.
A humiliation of the regents would destroy the credibility of the board as the governing body of the university. It would confirm suspicions among political leaders and the public that the U is unaccountable and unmanageable. Already tepid, crucial public and political support for the university would suffer further.
The current impasse developed in early September, when the regents put forward controversial proposals for revisions in the university's tenure code. The code protects academics from arbitrary or politically motivated dismissal or discipline. The purpose of the proposed revisions is to enhance the university's flexibility to economize and readjust priorities in the face of serious budgetary pressures.
The regents had accepted most of the useful tenure reform proposals earlier approved by the faculty. But the board went further, also seeking authority to lay off tenured professors in the event an entire program is closed, as well as authority to reduce faculty salaries for "compelling reasons."
These were only proposals. But instead of the comment and reaction they asked for, the regents have gotten a virtual insurrection. Union organizing efforts among the faculty quickly advanced to the point of triggering state labor laws that ban further negotiations until a union vote is taken later this fall. Openly breaking with his board, University President Nils Hasselmo has joined in calling on the regents to back down.
That would be a mistake--but not because the regents' tenure proposals are without flaws. Ill-defined standards such as "compelling reasons" might well be misused against politically unpopular researchers. Also, the procedures by which program could be closed and layoffs authorized must be carefully designed to conform to practices at other top research universities.
But these and other issues can and should be compromised, whatever the outcome of the unionization effort.
There may, in fact, be hope. Discussions between regents and faculty organizing leaders are under way under the auspices of the state Bureau of Mediation Services. Some are suggesting that a distinguished outside panel should examine the tenure issue and make recommendations for settling the dispute.
But whatever mechanisms come into play to advance further discussion and compromise, the regents must affirm their determination to fulfill their responsibility--to govern the university in what they understand to be the best interests of all Minnesotans.
In asserting that authority, if not in all of their proposals on tenure, the regents deserve Minnesotans' support.