A Presidential Perspective from Japan

Abstract

the same, then the implementation of a posttenure review system will only focus more attention on research, as opposed to teaching. Moreover, to improve teaching, or address issues such as nonproductive faculty, we ought not reject out of hand the importance of ideas such as academic freedom. It seems wrong-headed to suggest that we must give up the cherished value of academic freedom to help make the academy more efficient. And I have seen no work that proposes alternative structures that will provide as rigorous a support of academic freedom as does tenure.4 At the same time, we also must recognize the fiscal and productivity-related issues that currently confront the academy. What should we do? One step is to move the debate away from the pros and cons of tenure. If issues such as productivity are a concern, we should address them alone—just as we would in business and industry. Tenure is a structure that is governed and defined by faculty and administrators—it can change according to communal desire. A second step is to consider ways to implement performance reviews that do not bring into question whether tenure should or should not stay. Instead, we might develop a system that enables a professor to talk about the kind of work he or she intends to do, and allows the faculty to assess these plans to ensure that all individuals are able to make a contribution to their academic communities while we still maintain an adherence to academic freedom and the tenure system. The best of both worlds—the maintenance of academic freedom and a more productive academy—are surely possible if we put our minds and hearts to it.