Proposed Law Seen As Threat To U.K. University Science

LONDON—Stephen Maim, an upand-coming young chemist at England’s Bath University, was delighted recently by his unusual promotion from junior lecturer directly to reader—a move that, is the United States, would be like rising overnight from instructor to associate professor. But his new status—just one rung below full professor—and the pay raise that accompanied it came with a big snag. As a junior lecturer, Mann had had tenure; universities in the U.K. normally award it to all full-time instructors after a three-year probation. But when he accepted the promotion, he lost his job security, since Bath University has already adopted a new policy that is soon expected to become law: Schools will no longer grant tenure, and academics who already have it will lose their job security if they move between pay scales or transfer to another institution. This provision forms the central plank of the government’s Education Reform Bill, a major legislative package now winding its way through Parliament. The bill, which would revamp the administration of high school and college education, still faces intense debate, but is expected top by the end of the year. And, observers say, even if the legislation is revised in some respects prior to passage, the clause aimed at abolishing tenure is likely to survive intact. Although Mann doesn’t like the idea of losing his job security, he’s not frantic. He feels that if he’s good enough to have won his recent promotion, he’s good enough to get another job if he ever needs to and, therefore, doesn’t need tenure. Other scientists, however, are less sanguine about their prospects— particularly since the government could use the abolition of tenure as a means to cut back the number of science positions for the sake of economy, but also, some fear, to simply slough off academics with troublesome reputations. What better way to accomplish that, cynics ask, than to reorganize departments or apply other pressure on academics to switch jobs. Under the proposed legislation, such a move would mean the end of tenure for the scientist. Already, the University Grants Committee, which currently sets policy and controls government funds for the U.K.’s universities, is sweeping through the schools, reorganizing science departments. That committee reportedly believes that it is both easier and cheaper to provide superb equipment for a moderate number of big departments than for a lot of small ones. To this end, the committee is reviewing major science disciplines to determine whether it can indeed concentrate staff in each discipline in a smaller number of big departments. The nightmare of British academicians is that this “concentration” effort is but a thinly veiled first step toward big cutbacks in the number of instructors. The government has so far pushed ahead with the first such centralizing scheme, a restructuring of earth sciences faculties in the U.K. The plan, which would see the closing of eight of the current 32 university earth science departments nationwide, would result in an estimated 100 to 150 scientists being forced to choose between moving or retiring. The committee currently is conducting similar studies of chemistry and physics faculties, with plans for restructuring in biological sciences and engineering expected to follow. In this atmosphere, the tenure clause of the Reform Bill has naturally become the object of heated debate—popular among those who criticize the universities for featherbedding academia with “jobs for life,” but the object of passionate opposition among those who fear that it could lead to the end of academic freedom. Opposition has focused on demanding explicit safeguards for academic freedom—to protect untenured staff, for example, against dismissal for unpopular views. Failure to include such a clause, according to Patrick Renshaw of Sheffield University, could open the way to McCarthy-style witch-hunts against social or political dissidents. To plug the loophole, Lord Jenkins, chancellor of Oxford University, wrote an amendment to the bill that would require the government-appointed commissioners who oversee the U.K.’s educational policies to ensure that academic staff “have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions” without losing their jobs. The House of Lords, which rarely objects to a government bill, surprised everyone by accepting Jenkins’ amendment. But the amendment cannot become law—along with the education reform act as a whole—without further debate in the House of Commons. In that encounter, it is possible that the government will remove Jenkins’ clause, though that now appears unlikely. A more difficult hole to plug, the brain drain, may draw talent away from universities even faster when tenure disappears, Renshaw argues. It’s a hot political topic in the U.K., since the U.S. immigration service is already registering about 1,000 scientists and engineers from the U.K. each year who are taking up permanent residence in the U.S. “Why should first-class scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, and accountants work at universities "when they can earn so much more outside, or why should they stay in Britain when they can make so much more abroad?” asks Renshaw. Job security certainly won’t be the reason, he points out, if tenure is abolished. Lord Jenkins agrees with the concern that the best of today’s talent may leave academia and the best of tomorrow’s may avoid it. He told the House of Lords that the passage of the bill would mean Britain would be left with no world-class university by the end of the century. Jon Turney is science editor of the London Times Higher Education Supplement.

Proposed Law Seen As Threat To U.K. University Science

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of