The battle for tenure rages on (over crabs)

Recently I got interested in talking about tenure again.

On Friday we joined an real-live-academic for butter crabs. I postulated that

• Tenure isn't necessary to protect people from producing controversial work. Controversial work is its own reward.

I cited Levett, the Dixie Chicks, and the-lady-who-wrote-the-Nanking-Massacre as people who benefited professionally from taking controversial positions (if not immeadiately). My point was basically that people who disagree with the CW are subject to criticism, but they will profit from cutting edge work.

He argued that

• Tenure is part of an overall system for protecting people developing progressive ideas
• The majority of research isn't for popular consumption
• Iris Chang, who wrote the Rape of Nanking, wasn't a professor and didn't have tenure, but did commit suicide

He mentioned an Australian professor he knew who, during the whole 拉致問題, got the ambassidors from Japan, North Korea and South Korea into a room during a conference and told them that all three of their governments had engaged in terrorist activities.
Specifically the professor mentioned

• Japan's insistance on looking at the kidnappings in isolation without considering past actions (i.e. the invasion).
• S. Korea's suppression of student protests during the formation of the government after the Korean War (I think...)

My friend, who was fairly young at the time was very impressed by this man's courage and, they met later, asked him where he got it.

"Tenure" was the reply.

[This post needs a subheading. Something about intellectual light-weights and heavy-weights. Or maybe the value of knowing what you're talking about. ed. I looked up who Iris Chang was. Your cookie is in the mail. ed.]