Tenure Can’t Stay the Same

Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt’s recent announcement that tenure will be phased out at the state’s public regional universities and community colleges has ignited predictable reactions. Some see an existential threat to academic freedom. Others welcome what they view as long-overdue accountability in publicly funded higher education. Both responses are understandable. Neither, on its own, is sufficient.

Tenure has long occupied a central place in American higher education. It rests on a simple but vital premise: Universities best serve the public good when scholars are free to pursue truth wherever it leads, without fear of dismissal due to political, ideological or donor-driven pressures. By granting a continuing appointment that cannot be revoked without due process, tenure insulates faculty from retaliatory termination and thereby lowers the personal risk of pursuing controversial lines of inquiry.

But the legitimacy of the tenure system has always been tethered to institutional purpose and accountability.

The University of Chicago’s influential Shils report makes this point. It argues that the core functions of the modern university—the discovery of knowledge, the teaching of students and preparation for professional and civic life—necessitate robust criteria for academic appointment, retention and promotion that prioritize work and accomplishments of “the highest order.” A university that does not hold its faculty and staff to the highest academic and professional standards will fail as an institution. Therefore, all appointments and promotions, including tenure, must be taken seriously, with careful consideration of a prospective or current faculty member’s record of research, teaching and service. No advancement, not even tenure, should ever be automatic or guaranteed.

In this sense, faculty protections are not ends in themselves. They exist to support those high institutional purposes.

This historical grounding matters because it helps to illuminate what is happening throughout the country.

Oklahoma’s directive is not an isolated event. It is part of a broader national recalibration. In recent months, a Tennessee lawmaker introduced legislation that would have prohibited public universities from granting new tenure, before withdrawing the bill upon further consideration of tenure’s purpose and the potential competitive and recruitment consequences. Florida’s Board of Governors has implemented a mandatory post-tenure review process, conducted at five-year intervals, across its public university system. Georgia’s Board of Regents revised its tenure and post-tenure review policies to expand oversight and clarify pathways for dismissal in cases of sustained underperformance. Texas law requires governing boards to adopt periodic evaluations of tenured faculty, reinforcing formal review structures at the system level. And Kansas has adopted new faculty workload and post-tenure review standards that more explicitly tie expectations to institutional mission and classification, including clearer teaching-load requirements. Meanwhile, other states are tightening post-tenure review processes and strengthening workload expectations rather than abolishing tenure outright.

Falling public confidence in higher education is driving this re-examination of the tenure system. Citizens and policymakers are rightly concerned about rising tuition costs, inconsistent labor-market outcomes for graduates, ideological homogeneity and administrative bloat. And they are demanding accountability.

Organizations such as the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, where I serve as a curricular fellow, have argued that while tenure is essential for protecting academic freedom, many tenure systems lack meaningful post-appointment accountability. Universities often fail to conduct thorough post-tenure reviews, address chronic underperformance or evaluate faculty based on teaching quality.

Concerns about intellectual diversity further complicate the picture. A 2024 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression documents that many faculty self-censor and observes that controversial subjects cannot be discussed freely on campus. A 2024 Inside Higher Ed/Hanover Research survey found overwhelming faculty concern about academic freedom, with about nine in 10 respondents strongly or somewhat agreeing it is under threat and large shares reporting declines in their sense of freedom in teaching, research and extramural speech.

Analysis of this survey data by Heterodox Academy underscores that self-censorship is not confined to a single part of the ideological spectrum; faculty across diverse orientations report feeling constrained in how they teach, research or speak publicly about contentious issues. These patterns suggest that even tenured and tenure-track faculty may limit expression, not because of formal sanction but because of perceived professional or social risk. Such findings challenge the assumption that current tenure systems uniformly protect open inquiry. If the principle of tenure is to regain public confidence, it must safeguard viewpoint diversity in practice as well as in principle.

Recent controversies make the point concrete. At the University of Pennsylvania, Amy Wax, a tenured professor, faced formal sanctions following inflammatory public comments, reinforcing for some that even tenure does not preclude institutional discipline. At Princeton University, Joshua Katz, also tenured, was dismissed after misconduct proceedings that unfolded amid intense backlash to his criticism of campus activism.

From a different ideological direction, the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign’s rescinded appointment for Steven Salaita after controversial tweets about Israel and Gaza became a national flashpoint over extramural speech and donor pressure. The particulars of each case are contested. But taken together, they underscore a broader reality: Both formal sanction and informal political pressure—whether from administrators, donors, legislators or campus activists—shape what faculty believe is professionally safe to say, teach or research.

Whether one agrees fully with these critiques or cases is less important than recognizing their influence. They are shaping policy decisions in statehouses and governing boards nationwide.

Notably, Oklahoma’s directive does not abolish tenure across the entire system. Research universities may retain it, albeit with strengthened review processes. The policy is directed primarily at regional public institutions and community colleges—campuses with missions that center most heavily on teaching, access and workforce mobility.

Institutional mission differentiation is a critical—and often overlooked—dimension of this debate. Research universities, comprehensive regional institutions and community colleges do not serve identical functions. Faculty roles differ accordingly. A one-size-fits-all employment model may not optimally support institutions whose primary purposes are undergraduate instruction and economic opportunity. Evaluation processes should leave room for such distinctions.

The path forward, then, is a balancing act, not a zero-sum game.

Preserving tenure unchanged in the face of shifting public expectations is not sustainable. Eliminating faculty protections wholesale would be equally misguided. The more constructive course lies in reform that strengthens accountability while safeguarding the intellectual independence on which higher education depends.

The long-standing equilibrium between faculty autonomy and public accountability is being renegotiated. That renegotiation need not be destructive. Indeed, it may offer an opportunity to clarify higher education’s civic purpose at a moment when democratic institutions face intensifying strain.

Universities do not exist solely to credential workers or advance research agendas. They also prepare citizens—individuals capable of engaging across differences, weighing evidence and participating constructively in public life.

Faculty employment structures should support that mission.

This piece was originally published by Inside Higher Ed on March 16, 2026.