Earlier this month, Governor Kevin Stitt signed an executive order making Oklahoma the first state to ban tenure. The order ends the practice for all new faculty at the state’s regional public universities and community colleges. In signing it, Stitt sent a clear message: Academic freedom is a privilege reserved for faculty at the state’s research-intensive institutions. But his unilateral move robbed Okies (of which I am one) of the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion about tenure’s value to their higher education system.
While faculty at the state’s public research universities—Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma—will keep their tenure, new teaching staff at the 23 affected colleges will shift to renewable contracts tied to “teaching effectiveness, student completion, job placement, and economic alignment.”
The tenure ban was part of a package of orders that will, Stitt said, ensure “Oklahoma’s public higher education system delivers real results for students, taxpayers, and the state’s economy.”
The smaller regional colleges and universities have lower costs of attendance and provide students with the special supports they need– smaller class sizes and personal relationships with professors. But now, classes at their closest and most affordable institutions will be taught by professors much less likely to invest in the long-term health of their institutions and communities.
Writing for The Southwest Ledger, James Finck, a tenured professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, questioned what Stitt’s order communicates to rural communities. “What about our students? Are they less important? At a time when we complain about the cost of education, do we really want to undermine the schools that offer affordable, high-quality education?” he wrote. “Schools like mine may not survive if they cannot attract faculty. And, even if they remain open, what kind of education will students receive if professors are afraid to challenge ideas, push boundaries, and teach students how to think critically in a complex world?”
Stitt is not the first lawmaker to target tenure—between 2012 and 2022, 13 tenure bans were considered in state legislatures, but no outright ban has ever passed. Whether or not Governor Stitt knew the legislative history of tenure, the blunt tool of an executive order bypasses the deliberation seen in previous states. Maybe that’s the point.
And yet, these discussions matter. Last week a Tennessee lawmaker rescinded a bill he introduced to end tenure at all publicly funded institutions after exploring the history of tenure protections. Republican Justin Lafferty became convinced of tenure’s retention benefits and defense of faculty freedom when the stakes are high. “In a controversial time, I kind of understand you want those protections in place to not lose the talent that you’ve been able to acquire,” he explained to his subcommittee.
How much consultation Stitt sought for his decision is unclear. Sean Burrage, the Stitt-appointed chancellor for higher education in the state, told The Lawton Constitution that regents would welcome the opportunity “for a meaningful, statewide dialogue regarding faculty tenure models.” But a politically appointed board is unlikely to go against a governor’s orders. Policymaking by decree is also one of the least durable forms of governance. Who’s to say the next governor will honor Stitt’s orders? And if they are more pro-tenure, what impact will this order have on the quality of faculty the state is able to retain and attract in the meantime? The future of professors’ careers and the quality of teaching should not be dictated by the direction of political winds in the governor’s mansion.
There is a worthwhile policy conversation to have about aligning public higher education with workforce needs, as Stitt intends. And there are ways to make tenure more contingent on specific outcomes; Stitt’s order also mandates post-tenure review at Oklahoma’s research-intensive institutions every five years, for example. But that’s not what happened in Oklahoma.
Critics of the governor’s order have questioned its legality. And state lawmakers are expected to review the orders in their legislative session. If the democratic process of checks and balances is allowed to happen, the people of Oklahoma might conclude that a ban on tenure at regional universities and community colleges is what’s best for their state. They deserve the right to decide.
Sara Custer is editor in chief at Inside Higher Ed.
