Isenberg tenure denial should spark debate, study

The University's surprising decision to deny tenure to history professor Andrew Isenberg has rekindled an old debate on campus: What's the deal with tenure? The idea of a job for life both intrigues and appalls those folks who will eventually leave Princeton to find a "real" job, while the firing of a much-loved professor like Isenberg generates a sense of injustice. In these moments, it's tempting both to attack the institution of tenure and to demand that its gatekeepers tweak their criteria for entry, so that at least Professor Isenberg can squeeze through. From the administration's perspective, meanwhile, there's a desire both to emphasize the confidentiality of the tenure process and to deter any impression that the issue of tenure is really up for discussion.

The irony in all this is that Professor Isenberg should have been a poster-child for the current tenure system. There are many excellent teachers at Princeton who've struggled to produce publications, and face the ax at tenure-time because they've fallen behind in their research. Isenberg, however, published a very well-received book ("The Destruction of the Bison") with a very reputable press (Cambridge) in 2000, and is hard at work on his next project. As a typical grad student with a healthy interest in lassitude and work-evasion, I've been amazed to watch over the past few years as Isenberg has performed the "tenure miracle:" He's been a dedicated teacher and a productive researcher. If Princeton makes unreasonable demands of its junior faculty, asking them to spin numerous plates, to be in every place at once and to write a book in the process, Isenberg has met the challenge.

While the undergraduate response to Isenberg's predicament has been heartening, Nassau Hall could easily sidestep any protests by stressing that teaching isn't the only factor in a tenure decision. My own theory is that good teachers are almost always good researchers, since the two activities are so closely related. Grad students have flocked to Isenberg since his arrival at Princeton not only because he makes time for them and engages with their research projects, but because he's intellectually curious and makes connections between his own work and theirs. The best student-teacher relationships are those in which you feel like you're having a conversation of sorts, rather than being lectured to, and so the best teachers are the folks whose scholarly research fosters an interest in what you, a measly student, have to say. Isenberg has built a huge following not just because his door is open, but because he has an open mind as well.

Of course, it's true that Princeton has so much money and prestige that it doesn't need to take a gamble on its assistant professors. It could just deny tenure to all its junior faculty, and then buy in talent at the senior level. Many departments at Harvard and Yale are just like this: The junior faculty are worked to the bone with undergraduate teaching, and the senior faculty are hired from outside. This system has the virtue of ensuring that your department is filled only with "stars" rather than comets, meteors, and so on; but it hardly guarantees that these stars will keep burning as brightly once they've moved into their new offices and started to cash their engorged paychecks. One could point to more than a few "red giants" who've moved into the terminal phase of scholarly usefulness through this arrangement.

The nice thing about Princeton, by comparison, is that the junior faculty here are encouraged to believe that their research, teaching and general contribution to academic life will help them to win a lasting place in the Princeton community, rather than to get a lucrative job somewhere else. The notion of assistant professors as integral to the University rather than disposable also encourages senior professors to accept their responsibilities to students as well as to their own research. Professor Isenberg is a model for the Princeton way of doing things, and so this tenure decision begs an important question: Did something go wrong in this case, or has Princeton moved the goalposts closer to those at Harvard and Yale?

Although Isenberg's first book offers a rich and provocative study of Americans and their environment in the 19th century West, things don't turn out well for the bison.

There's no reason, however, why the debate over tenure should end badly. It would be terrific if the USG embarked on a study of the issue, and worked in collaboration with Nassau Hall to realize the scholarly potential of great teachers who struggle to produce books before their tenure evaluation. In the meantime, Princeton should simply revisit the Isenberg decision and realize that, even given the current criteria, this distinguished teacher and researcher deserves promotion.

Nicholas Guyatt is a graduate student in the history department. He is from Bristol, England.