Wednesday, June 17, 2009


Here's my rant for today: why should anyone have tenure in their job position? It only benefits the person who has tenure - a perk of the job - but what is the point? Does it promote excellence in anything? All it does is keep the incompetent from being removed and replaced.

The president of the United States doesn't have tenure. Neither do any of the CEO's of our big corporations, thank goodness. Why should lame teachers and professors enjoy such a status?

I'm not saying that all tenured people are lame but then if you are good at what you do, then why would you need tenure in the first place?

Back in college I remember suffering through some classes while we all wondered, why do they let this person teach??? And there's no point in filling out evaluations at the end of the quarter because no matter what you say, it makes no difference. I had one professor who, as he paused to think of what to say next, rested his finger inside of his nose. Granted, his finger wasn't active but couldn't he find a better place to park it?

Here is someone who has tenure: Kim Jong-il. Chairman Mao had it. So did Fidel Castro. Those are great arguments for tenure, aren't they? I know I sound like Andy Looney from 60 Minutes today but when you think about it, what is the point of granting tenure to employees and making them invulnerable? Your performance should be what bullet-proofs you, not seniority or politics.

Employees should not be invincible.

No comments: