德州大学本来就超级有钱，加上不久前州政府通过法案，未来两年内在高等教育上要投资5B, 只要钱给到位，不怕没人来 Last month, the gavel came down on the historic 88th Texas Legislative Session, as state lawmakers demonstrated a once-in-a-generation commitment to higher education, investing more than $5 billion over the next two years.
source? 我看到的6月的新闻说ban没pass state. 学校被要求定义tenure。 Faculty tenure was a hot-button topic during the 2023 legislative session. But what started out as a controversial proposal to ban tenure at all institutions of higher education eventually evolved into a tenure-affirming bill that standardizes the definition of tenure, imposes a framework for evaluation and dismissal, and requires all institutions, including community colleges, to adopt tenure-related policies by August 31, 2023. Although a majority of Texas community colleges are not tenure-granting institutions – most phased it out over the last 35 years, opting instead to offer multi-year rolling contracts – tenure systems still exist at some Texas community colleges. Under Senate Bill 18, which the governor signed on June 14, all Texas community colleges must adopt a board policy addressing tenure and file the policy with the Coordinating Board of Higher Education, even if the policy simply reaffirms that the institution does not grant tenure. Here are the key takeaways regarding SB 18 and tenure at community colleges: Faculty tenure is permitted but not required. While the original version of SB 18 would have banned institutions from granting tenure after September 2023, Senate Bill 18 gives local boards the authority and discretion to decide whether to confer tenure or whether to stick with term contracts. “Tenure” now has an official, standard definition. SB 18 defines “tenure” as “the entitlement of a faculty member of an institution of higher education to continue in the faculty member’s academic position unless dismissed by the institution for good cause,” in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures. “Tenure,” when granted, does not extend to extra duties or stipends. Under SB 18, although tenure protects the faculty member’s continued employment, it “may not be construed to create a property interest in any attribute” beyond continuing employment. All community colleges must adopt a tenure policy—even if just to disavow tenure. The board-adopted tenure policies and procedures must address the granting of tenure, provide a mechanism for the dismissal of tenured faculty with due process, and establish a periodic performance evaluation process for all tenured faculty. Boards must obtain faculty input before adopting tenure policies and procedures. There is a short window to satisfy this requirement prior to September 1. Only the community college’s board may grant tenure, on the institution’s CEO’s recommendation.The law establishes a performance evaluation process. Community colleges must conduct a comprehensive performance evaluation for each tenured instructor at least once every six years, but no more than once every year. Under the new law, tenure may be revoked if, during the evaluation process, the institution finds incompetency, neglect of the faculty member’s duties, or other good cause for tenure revocation. Institutions must place any tenured faculty who receive an unsatisfactory rating on any portion of their comprehensive evaluation on a short-term development plan that includes performance benchmarks for returning to satisfactory performance. The law specifies dismissal standards. SB 18 allows termination for good cause but also lists specific grounds that will constitute good cause. These include, for example, “professional incompetence,” failure to successfully complete any post-tenure review professional development program, “conduct involving moral turpitude that adversely affects the institution or the faculty member’s performance of their duties,” violation of a law or institutional policy that “substantially relates to the performance of the faculty member’s duties,” unprofessional conduct, falsification of academic credentials, and a financial exigency. Before terminating a tenured faculty member, the institution must provide due process. Although SB 18 does not impose particular procedures, constitutional due process principles will apply. In the Fifth Circuit, a tenured professor facing termination is entitled to (1) be advised of the cause for the termination in sufficient detail so as to enable the faculty member to show any error that may exist; (2) be advised of the names and the nature of the testimony of the witnesses against the faculty member; (3) a meaningful opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time; and (4) a hearing before a tribunal that possesses some academic expertise and an apparent impartiality toward the charges. See Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020). When witness credibility is critical, the faculty member also may be entitled to confront his or her accuser. See id. The law recognizes the concept of the “summary dismissal.” SB 18 allows—but does not require—institutions to create a mechanism for “summary dismissal” of tenured faculty based on “serious misconduct,” which the institution must define in policy. The term “summary dismissal” is somewhat misleading because it suggests that a professor can be terminated on the spot, which is simply not the case under federal due process principles. Under the bill, a “summary dismissal” will require written notice of allegations (including an explanation of the evidence), a hearing before a “designated administrator” who renders a written decision, and an opportunity for an undefined “post-dismissal appeal.” Before adopting a “summary dismissal” procedure pursuant to SB18, boards should consult legal counsel to ensure that their procedures satisfy federal due process requirements.
没ban tenure. Texas legislators approved changes in tenure practices at the state’s public colleges and universities that enshrine the process in state law. While many faculty leaders view the changes as troublesome, they are still relieved, because the Senate had earlier voted to eliminate tenure going forward. Now both the House and Senate have approved the legislation. It still must be signed by Governor Greg Abbott, which is expected. And a conference committee of House and Senate members agreed on a measure, previously passed by both houses, to eliminate offices for diversity, equity and inclusion at the state’s universities.
上周和在德州的同事开过会，闲聊时讨论过这个问题。他们说现在tenure目前还是受state law保护。不过也正因为如此，保留或者取消tenure已经成为legislature的决定，目前虽说安全，但未来很难讲。另外，如果取消的话，只对未来想要拿tenure的教授有影响，已经拿到的就管不着了。而且现在德州大学的问题不仅在于老师的tenureship，还有fredom of speech，前段时间关于A&M某位教授的被审查的新闻好像版上也提到过：https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/27/texas-tamu-faculty-disappointment/。
source? 我看到的6月的新闻说ban没pass state. 学校被要求定义tenure。 Faculty tenure was a hot-button topic during the 2023 legislative session. But what started out as a controversial proposal to ban tenure at all institutions of higher education eventually evolved into a tenure-affirming bill that standardizes the definition of tenure, imposes a framework for evaluation and dismissal, and requires all institutions, including community colleges, to adopt tenure-related policies by August 31, 2023. Although a majority of Texas community colleges are not tenure-granting institutions – most phased it out over the last 35 years, opting instead to offer multi-year rolling contracts – tenure systems still exist at some Texas community colleges. Under Senate Bill 18, which the governor signed on June 14, all Texas community colleges must adopt a board policy addressing tenure and file the policy with the Coordinating Board of Higher Education, even if the policy simply reaffirms that the institution does not grant tenure. Here are the key takeaways regarding SB 18 and tenure at community colleges: Faculty tenure is permitted but not required. While the original version of SB 18 would have banned institutions from granting tenure after September 2023, Senate Bill 18 gives local boards the authority and discretion to decide whether to confer tenure or whether to stick with term contracts. “Tenure” now has an official, standard definition. SB 18 defines “tenure” as “the entitlement of a faculty member of an institution of higher education to continue in the faculty member’s academic position unless dismissed by the institution for good cause,” in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures. “Tenure,” when granted, does not extend to extra duties or stipends. Under SB 18, although tenure protects the faculty member’s continued employment, it “may not be construed to create a property interest in any attribute” beyond continuing employment. All community colleges must adopt a tenure policy—even if just to disavow tenure. The board-adopted tenure policies and procedures must address the granting of tenure, provide a mechanism for the dismissal of tenured faculty with due process, and establish a periodic performance evaluation process for all tenured faculty. Boards must obtain faculty input before adopting tenure policies and procedures. There is a short window to satisfy this requirement prior to September 1. Only the community college’s board may grant tenure, on the institution’s CEO’s recommendation.The law establishes a performance evaluation process. Community colleges must conduct a comprehensive performance evaluation for each tenured instructor at least once every six years, but no more than once every year. Under the new law, tenure may be revoked if, during the evaluation process, the institution finds incompetency, neglect of the faculty member’s duties, or other good cause for tenure revocation. Institutions must place any tenured faculty who receive an unsatisfactory rating on any portion of their comprehensive evaluation on a short-term development plan that includes performance benchmarks for returning to satisfactory performance. The law specifies dismissal standards. SB 18 allows termination for good cause but also lists specific grounds that will constitute good cause. These include, for example, “professional incompetence,” failure to successfully complete any post-tenure review professional development program, “conduct involving moral turpitude that adversely affects the institution or the faculty member’s performance of their duties,” violation of a law or institutional policy that “substantially relates to the performance of the faculty member’s duties,” unprofessional conduct, falsification of academic credentials, and a financial exigency. Before terminating a tenured faculty member, the institution must provide due process. Although SB 18 does not impose particular procedures, constitutional due process principles will apply. In the Fifth Circuit, a tenured professor facing termination is entitled to (1) be advised of the cause for the termination in sufficient detail so as to enable the faculty member to show any error that may exist; (2) be advised of the names and the nature of the testimony of the witnesses against the faculty member; (3) a meaningful opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time; and (4) a hearing before a tribunal that possesses some academic expertise and an apparent impartiality toward the charges. See Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020). When witness credibility is critical, the faculty member also may be entitled to confront his or her accuser. See id. The law recognizes the concept of the “summary dismissal.” SB 18 allows—but does not require—institutions to create a mechanism for “summary dismissal” of tenured faculty based on “serious misconduct,” which the institution must define in policy. The term “summary dismissal” is somewhat misleading because it suggests that a professor can be terminated on the spot, which is simply not the case under federal due process principles. Under the bill, a “summary dismissal” will require written notice of allegations (including an explanation of the evidence), a hearing before a “designated administrator” who renders a written decision, and an opportunity for an undefined “post-dismissal appeal.” Before adopting a “summary dismissal” procedure pursuant to SB18, boards should consult legal counsel to ensure that their procedures satisfy federal due process requirements.
🔥 最新回帖
Last month, the gavel came down on the historic 88th Texas Legislative Session, as state lawmakers demonstrated a once-in-a-generation commitment to higher education, investing more than $5 billion over the next two years.
gtech涨了多少？在系统里10年，大概总共涨了10%，平均一年1%？包括promotion。
是啊。我们应该着重讨论什么时候开始废除tenure。 已经tenured的，怎么办？ 没tenure的想tenure的，怎么办？
🛋️ 沙发板凳
是废将要tenured的，还是废已经tenured的？
都废了，根本没有tenure这么一说了
不可能。已经tenured的教授还不闹事。
谁怕书生闹事？LOL
正在闹
取消tenure。教授就不需要为学校的commit，不存在conflict of commitment一说。教授们以他们的能力，会走向富裕之路的。对教授肯定是好事情。
倒霉的是学生，更没人好好教课了
Faculty tenure was a hot-button topic during the 2023 legislative session. But what started out as a controversial proposal to ban tenure at all institutions of higher education eventually evolved into a tenure-affirming bill that standardizes the definition of tenure, imposes a framework for evaluation and dismissal, and requires all institutions, including community colleges, to adopt tenure-related policies by August 31, 2023. Although a majority of Texas community colleges are not tenure-granting institutions – most phased it out over the last 35 years, opting instead to offer multi-year rolling contracts – tenure systems still exist at some Texas community colleges. Under Senate Bill 18, which the governor signed on June 14, all Texas community colleges must adopt a board policy addressing tenure and file the policy with the Coordinating Board of Higher Education, even if the policy simply reaffirms that the institution does not grant tenure. Here are the key takeaways regarding SB 18 and tenure at community colleges: Faculty tenure is permitted but not required. While the original version of SB 18 would have banned institutions from granting tenure after September 2023, Senate Bill 18 gives local boards the authority and discretion to decide whether to confer tenure or whether to stick with term contracts. “Tenure” now has an official, standard definition. SB 18 defines “tenure” as “the entitlement of a faculty member of an institution of higher education to continue in the faculty member’s academic position unless dismissed by the institution for good cause,” in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures. “Tenure,” when granted, does not extend to extra duties or stipends. Under SB 18, although tenure protects the faculty member’s continued employment, it “may not be construed to create a property interest in any attribute” beyond continuing employment. All community colleges must adopt a tenure policy—even if just to disavow tenure. The board-adopted tenure policies and procedures must address the granting of tenure, provide a mechanism for the dismissal of tenured faculty with due process, and establish a periodic performance evaluation process for all tenured faculty. Boards must obtain faculty input before adopting tenure policies and procedures. There is a short window to satisfy this requirement prior to September 1. Only the community college’s board may grant tenure, on the institution’s CEO’s recommendation. The law establishes a performance evaluation process. Community colleges must conduct a comprehensive performance evaluation for each tenured instructor at least once every six years, but no more than once every year. Under the new law, tenure may be revoked if, during the evaluation process, the institution finds incompetency, neglect of the faculty member’s duties, or other good cause for tenure revocation. Institutions must place any tenured faculty who receive an unsatisfactory rating on any portion of their comprehensive evaluation on a short-term development plan that includes performance benchmarks for returning to satisfactory performance. The law specifies dismissal standards. SB 18 allows termination for good cause but also lists specific grounds that will constitute good cause. These include, for example, “professional incompetence,” failure to successfully complete any post-tenure review professional development program, “conduct involving moral turpitude that adversely affects the institution or the faculty member’s performance of their duties,” violation of a law or institutional policy that “substantially relates to the performance of the faculty member’s duties,” unprofessional conduct, falsification of academic credentials, and a financial exigency. Before terminating a tenured faculty member, the institution must provide due process. Although SB 18 does not impose particular procedures, constitutional due process principles will apply. In the Fifth Circuit, a tenured professor facing termination is entitled to (1) be advised of the cause for the termination in sufficient detail so as to enable the faculty member to show any error that may exist; (2) be advised of the names and the nature of the testimony of the witnesses against the faculty member; (3) a meaningful opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time; and (4) a hearing before a tribunal that possesses some academic expertise and an apparent impartiality toward the charges. See Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020). When witness credibility is critical, the faculty member also may be entitled to confront his or her accuser. See id. The law recognizes the concept of the “summary dismissal.” SB 18 allows—but does not require—institutions to create a mechanism for “summary dismissal” of tenured faculty based on “serious misconduct,” which the institution must define in policy. The term “summary dismissal” is somewhat misleading because it suggests that a professor can be terminated on the spot, which is simply not the case under federal due process principles. Under the bill, a “summary dismissal” will require written notice of allegations (including an explanation of the evidence), a hearing before a “designated administrator” who renders a written decision, and an opportunity for an undefined “post-dismissal appeal.” Before adopting a “summary dismissal” procedure pursuant to SB18, boards should consult legal counsel to ensure that their procedures satisfy federal due process requirements.
Texas legislators approved changes in tenure practices at the state’s public colleges and universities that enshrine the process in state law. While many faculty leaders view the changes as troublesome, they are still relieved, because the Senate had earlier voted to eliminate tenure going forward. Now both the House and Senate have approved the legislation. It still must be signed by Governor Greg Abbott, which is expected. And a conference committee of House and Senate members agreed on a measure, previously passed by both houses, to eliminate offices for diversity, equity and inclusion at the state’s universities.
读书越多越反动 只读圣经就可以了，方便管理，圈养的羔羊
支持，应该把tenure 废了
北卡也在准备废除tenure。
什么意思
制度真的得改一下了。
全国都废除可能有这个效果 只德州废除的话就是全部跳槽走了
真正牛的教授不会再乎tenure的。其他非顶流的教授跳就跳吧。大学的名气主要是靠头部的几个大牛撑出来。其他的无非是一个萝卜一个坑，换谁都差不多。
没这些精英来美国前，美国绝对的中世纪。
看看精英们来源的那个，30000里外的黄泥地，那是金鹰遍地啊。
白宫应该给这些精英们发邀请函，入住白宫把美国搞成一样的精英黄泥国。
外行就请不要乱评论了。医学院的tenured 教授工资也很大一部分是soft money。
不会这样的。 没有 tenure , 稍微有点本事的人都不会去学术界了。 大部分人谁一毕业就是牛人啊？ 有学术界tenure 制度下持续稳定nurture 的土壤， 才有了大部分人的成长。 所谓大牛不在乎有没有tenure, 确实是这样。 但是只剩下那几个大牛，也就没有高等教育这个行当了。
大牛也是牛崽长成的啊，牛圈不好牛崽也不愿意去
是啊，没有高收入，工作还很高强度，如果还没有保障，智商比较高工作比较努力的人是脑子坏了还是家里有矿要去做这行呢？
教授工作还是不错的， 1. 工资跟工业界其实差不多，特别是按九个月来算 2. 工作时间灵活自由，有寒暑假 3. 相当于自己做老板，可以做自己想做的事 就算没tenure，还是有很多人愿意做的，特别是那些对科研有真爱的。
支持天牛制度的 最常用的例子就是 怀尔斯 证明 费马大定理。 七年一篇paper 没发， 大家也不知道他在干嘛。 他同事都说， 没 天牛的话， 他应该早滚蛋了。
根据我的优先观察，sample size 学术界~20， 工业界~50 工资大概是工业界工作的30%-70% 之间吧，depending on location。 工作时间灵活，但是你总得花那么多时间，大概是工业界时间的120%-200%吧 自己做老板这个没说的，确实很爽 有人会做，但是基数少很多，数量上不去，质量也很难上去
没有tenure,教授工资会涨，而且教授还有pension和其他好的福利。工作时间120-200%的教授更不用担心了– 废除tenure不是针对他们的，而是那些拿到tenure后摆烂躺平，只工作30-50%的同事。
张益唐没有tenure不也做出了大成果？所以这个看人，跟tenure没大关系。很多千老做出成果时都没有tenure.
钱老做出成果的时候，谁给他发工资？是他tenure了的老板pay着，他才能静心搞科研
还成队出走？你以为faculty找工作这么容易，跟马工塞的
涨工资不是上嘴皮碰下嘴皮啊，这得看budget，enrollment，spending，根本不可能一下子给你涨多少啊。很多学校有的时候根本不涨工资你知道吗？ 稍微懂一点公立学校budget也不能这么指望吧。 pension和孩子学费的福利，差不多是最重要的两样大学的福利了，但是很多pension system表现不好。 至于说只工作30-50%的tenured faculty，我放眼四顾，认识的faculty中一个这样的也没有.. 州政府制定法律的人，必须有一些是higher ed的insider，不然太糟糕了，这么多误解
不是只有一个张益唐吗？你希望做研究的人都无妻无子？
呵呵，那么有的人就等不到奖励了，因为出成果周期长，也需要赚钱养家，直接转行了啊
Gatech已经走了不少了吧。
那还有人拿不到tenure必须走人呢。
可不是吗，tenure也得先拿到，先证明自己才有对吧？既然如此，现在的德州faculty们tenure是挣来的，这样拿走是不是不公道
至于取消后来的人的tenure， 那么就是push talents away from academia， 端看德州想干啥了
我说废除tenure也不错，其实也是心疼faculty啊。 简直是要把年轻faculty榨干。 就像万恶的实习医生制度一样，特别邪恶，年轻人学习或者证明自己，需要这样在短期内熬干榨干么？
只是支持在德州废除tenure而已啊。
又不是自个儿的州，德州这种地儿，闹点啥咱才能有热闹看啊。。。
明明只是push talents away from academia in Texas啊。。。
降低工作的待遇（sort of）也不是就许可大家就集体摆烂吧 不过也许就真的全体摆烂了，或者来个迁移潮
哎，多关注几个洪州的bill，你大概会发现，他们在疯狂试探，一个州如此，另一个跟上
不是摆烂，而是老的占着茅坑不拉屎 影响新生代得到职位
美国制度的特点（你说是优点也好缺点也好特点也好）之一就是州权相对独立。
这个明摆着改不了。像堕胎这事就是这样（我不是说堕胎这事一定就会是或者该是现在的状态了，只是说现状显然是因为州权相对独立造成的）。
那么红的州毕竟不是那么多，而且人家州非要闹，咱还能不让人家闹不成？毕竟这是人家州人民的选择啊。。。如果人家人民都这么想了，你还非要去教育他们说你们想的不对？这有点强人所难吧。。。
做人，轻松点儿好，犯不着那么大的社会责任感。。。
当然，更直接的原因是我自己不会直接受这类政策的影响 ：-）
你要以为取消tenure就可以淘汰不出活的老教授，那就错了。 取消tenure就是谁都没有科研的硬杠杠，淘汰的人更少。 只要没有丑闻，没有学生告你，工作就稳了。
谁说大牛不需要tenure保护。越是大牛越有可能有一些出格的想法和意见 （可能是对专业的，也可能是对政治社会的意见）。现在的学术圈已经是政治正确的很了，没有了tenure大家更是鹌鹑一样了。
最聪明的脑袋已经在华尔街和转码了。tenure 对于真正的人才没有任何吸引力。
难道你还没看出来要废除tenure 的州也是要保护大学言论自由的州吗？
那不是更好，还反对啥？！
所以中印stem都不是聪明的脑袋是吗
制造业的衰落。
软件还是火的很。但是软件包括chatgpt那些真是对生活帮助不大，大头都在圈钱
工业的衰落和成本，市场，工业化的生产方式有关，跟聪明的脑袋的关系也有，不是决定性的，因为聪明的人很多啊...
教授又不是不长腿， 换学校就是了 全国大学感谢德州
对，现在就是这个事情闹起来的， 大部分人还是对tenure的问题不乐观
看着挺合理
中印stem当然是聪明的脑袋呀
不在乎和有的选然后选什么还是有区别的，真正的牛人可以选的其他学校太多了，为什么要留在德州非tenure。就跟买房送车库 同样的价格没人非要去选一个不送车库的。德州又不是一个非留之地
工资肯定不如工业界 时间灵活也就是灵活，总时间多多了，其实恨不得24/7
肯定不少啊 但是faculty找工作不容易 要慢慢走 佛州前阵子说要学德州废除，消息刚出来 我们几个师兄就开始积极找工作了
说的有道理
去华尔街的白男也未必聪明 华尔街有一堆位子都是靠关系 Hedge fund比较硬核 这个pool里面移民很多
这景象不就是德州年轻人天下 老棒菜趴蓝州养老 到底是谁的好处？ 显然是德州吧