Save academic freedom ... by killing it first

[Academe] has far fewer checks and balances than other peer review professions. Doctors can lose their licenses. Lawyers can be disbarred. But incompetent or dishonest professors are often forever. If they have tenure, they are very hard to fire, and just about impossible to retire.How did such a sorry state of affairs arise?

As a tenured faculty member, I am in agreement with that excerpt (editor: how did your colleagues make the mistake of granting you indefinite tenure? Awshutupalready!  It is their problem now, isn't it?)

Anyway, back to the question that Erin O'Connor and Maurice Black raise: "How did such a sorry state of affairs arise?"

Back in the days when at least a few faculty bothered to chat with me and ask for my opinions, I shared with them my worries that we are screwing things up big time in higher education.  And that we are violating the contract we have with society--that they should leave us alone and we will deliver the best service ever.  Now, it is becoming clearer to the public that we are not delivering anywhere near what we promised and, predictably, they don't want to leave us alone. 

O'Connor and Black write that:

Nearly a century ago, the AAUP predicted that failure to ensure professional integrity would license the regulatory intrusions of trustees, legislators, and others. Now that is happening. And while the professoriate’s collective abdication of responsibility is not the sole explanation for these intrusions, it is a shamefully neglected piece of the puzzle.
Academic freedom belongs to the public — it is not the property of academics. Professors must explain why academic freedom is vital to our democracy — and prove that they deserve it.

Unfortunately, we didn't explain and prove.  And they are coming after us, and not merely in Wisconsin.  The AAUP's leader is upset:

Cary R. Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, believes higher education will see more legislative attacks on matters that colleges themselves should regulate, and questions whether lawmakers are right to micromanage campus policies: "Do we really need legislators deciding if Sally should get a sabbatical next year?"

Sally would have had hers without any interference if we had been doing the job well, Professor Nelson.  (editor: ahem, full disclosure? yes, I will on sabbatical in winter 2012.)