Dear Rep. Sunseri and Members of the Committee:

 The faculty of the University of Oregon strenuously opposes HB 2072, which seeks to eliminate tenure at Oregon's public colleges and universities. This bill would grievously harm the university, its students, and the state, and serves no clear purpose.

 I do not know the motivation for this bill, but it may well derive from a common misconception about tenure. It is commonly believed that tenure is a guarantee of "employment for life." It is not. There are, and have long been, Oregon Administrative Rules governing tenured faculty, ensuring that professors who no longer do their jobs well or who are in some way derelict in their duties may be demoted or even dismissed. A tenured professor is and should be subject to regular performance evaluations that determine such matters as salary and academic support. Tenure is, above all, a guarantee of academic freedom, and a guarantee that no one can be demoted or dismissed without due process. Thus, tenure is described in all relevant documents and contracts as "indefinite," not "permanent."

 I can speak only for the faculty of the University of Oregon. But here faculty, tenured and non-tenured alike, are constantly judged, reviewed, and evaluated by students, peers, and administrators. Such evaluations take the form of student course evaluations (mandatory for every course), merit reviews, self-evaluations offered by faculty to their department or program heads for review each year, reviews of outside accreditation teams (in the case of professional schools), and so on. It is important to note that the reward of tenure, made only after a comprehensive examination of teaching, service, and scholarship, does not mean an end to such evaluations, and that the UO Senate is currently reviewing post-tenure review, with the express purpose of making the process fair and rigorous.

 I can also assure you that the elimination of tenure in the state system would place us at an enormous competitive disadvantage in attempting to attract excellent new faculty and retain current ones. Without an ability to attract the best and the brightest--and there is no question that potential faculty would dismiss Oregon, already famous for its poor salaries, if it eliminated tenure as well--the public universities of this state would quickly fall into mediocrity. The principal victims would be the young men and women of Oregon, and thus Oregon's future. The students of the state system, not its faculty, are the real (if unintended) targets of HB 2072.

 No system of short-term contracts can replace tenure. The American Association of University Professors stated the societal case for tenure as long ago as 1940:

 "Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society."

 These words remain valid today. This bill is extreme and misguided. We ask you to oppose it.

 Sincerely,

Jeffrey Hurwit, Professor, Art History
President, University Senate
University of Oregon