To the editor: Linda Miller’s letter in defense of tenure does not make a convincing argument to retain this anachronistic policy.
All of her reasons for keeping tenure apply equally to everyone else in the workforce. What entitles teachers to special protection the rest of us do not enjoy? Are they so weak and ineffectual that they cannot fend for themselves? Everyone else must do a good job and trust that his or her work will add value and ensure continued employment. Why should teachers not have to do the same? In addition to the protection of tenure, they enjoy opportunities for sabbaticals, which are also not an option for the rest of us.
Just because they always dreamed of being a teacher and spent years on higher education to do so doesn’t mean they are guaranteed a lifetime of work in that field. None of us are guaranteed work in our field of endeavor. If teacher pay is too low and work too stressful, take another job. If they like working with children and are good at it, they need to do so using the same rules as the rest of us.
No tenure or special protection — just oldfashioned hard work with results.
The Quantum State of Consent
Posted: 10 Feb 2018 04:34 PM PST
56% of younger millennials identify as Christian. 2% as Jewish or Muslim. 1% as Buddhist. And 36% as nothing. That's double the number that made up the "nones" among baby boomers. Being a "none" often means having no sense of purpose, except to seek personal happiness and make the world a better place by recycling, opposing Trump and calling out racism. It also means a moral code based on academic analysis of power relationships between races, genders and sexual orientations.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," Benjamin Franklin cautioned more simply.
These aren't abstractions. Nor are they measured on some vast scale of civilizations. They define how we live our ordinary lives. They are why this debate is taking place.
Free people consent. But freedom comes from virtue. Freedom without virtue is anarchy. And anarchy ends in brutality and tyranny. That outcome isn't only expressed in riots in the streets. It emerges in smaller and more intimate matters, like the debate over consent.
Freedom of consent is failing. The left wants to replace it with brutality and tyranny. The brutality of online smear campaigns and the tyranny of campus kangaroo courts. But a secular right has no replacement for it either except the more libertarian brutality and tyranny of the individual.
What we forgot is that we don't truly have freedom of consent, until we have purpose.