Michael Crow. His name has an almost mythical quality. He is everywhere.
The ASU president fancies himself a visionary, a miracle worker, and, on his off days, an anti-terrorism crusader. He is "der über-president," single-handedly seizing the reins of this behemoth of a state university and dragging it kicking and screaming into the future.
In his short tenure at ASU, Dr. Crow has gained a reputation as a somewhat restless individual, declining to sit quietly in his office while the business of the University goes on as usual. Instead, he has aggressively pursued a variety of new projects, some successful, others not so much.
We now have the Biodesign Institute and a world-renowned scientist, George Poste, to head it up. We also have the W.P. Carey School of Business, whose name came with a $50 million pricetag. Not too shabby.
He has also engineered a 40 percent tuition hike and is on the way to toughening up admissions standards.
His has a reputation for hands-on management, for lack of a better term. He is not afraid to wade into the details of governing, especially in areas such as tenure for professors.
ASU Provost Milton Glick indicated that he has only seen an increase in the number of tenure cases that have been deferred since Crow's arrival.
While a deferral is not a denial, it's also not an award of tenure. In general, fewer professors are being awarded tenure under Crow. His vision for ASU is wonderfully corporate, laced with words like "entrepreneurship" and "competition."
I am not arguing that ASU should not explore different directions in order to evolve and change as a university. Change is not always something to be feared. But there is a dark undercurrent to Crow's actions.
This increase in the number of deferred tenure cases seems to send a subtle message that the president wishes to populate the ranks of ASU's tenured professors with those who share his vision for the "Great American University."
In any successful enterprise, teamwork is essential. In corporate America, if you don't buy in to the company philosophy, there is no place for you at the table. But as an institution of higher learning, ASU shouldn't have a "company line."
Tenure is an important part of the process that protects University faculty from retaliation for forming new ideas and expressing their opinions, which may have a tendency to be somewhat unorthodox or even radical at times. As well they should, because America's universities are supposed to be grounds for the development of new ideas.
Of course, tenure also has a downside. With tenure in place, a professor may be more inclined to view the teaching of undergraduates as an annoying afterthought and focus, instead, on his or her next paper, book, or whatever.
As much of a pain as it might be, however, the difficulties in removing a negligent or incompetent professor are a fair price for the tenure system.
Additionally, the tenure process represents a significant amount of time and energy on the part of an individual department to review candidates for tenure. If their recommendations are going to be ignored, then why bother making that kind of investment?
Dr. Crow's obvious desire to make ASU a premier institution is to be commended. I would be proud for once to mention ASU and not have that followed by an inquiry as to whether or not I starred in a Shane's World film.
But the path to enlightenment is fraught with peril. Beware the thought police.
Should ASU professors' tenure be deferred? Post your opinion in the forum below.
Chris Kotterman is a journalism and political science senior. Reach him at chris.kotterman@asu.edu.
