The behavioral sciences have come under attack for writings and speech that affront sensitivities. At such times, academic freedom and tenure are invoked to forestall efforts to censure and terminate jobs. We review the history and controversy surrounding academic freedom and tenure, and explore their meaning across different fields, at different institutions, and at different ranks. In a multifactoral experimental survey, 1,004 randomly selected faculty members from top-ranked institutions were asked how colleagues would typically respond when confronted with dilemmas concerning teaching, research, and wrong-doing. Full professors were perceived as being more likely to insist on having the academic freedom to teach unpopular courses, research controversial topics, and whistle-blow wrong-doing than were lower-ranked professors (even associate professors with tenure). Everyone thought that others were more likely to exercise academic freedom than they themselves were, and that promotion to full professor was a better predictor of who would exercise academic freedom than was the awarding of tenure. Few differences emerged related either to gender or type of institution, and behavioral scientists' beliefs were similar to scholars from other fields. In addition, no support was found for glib celebrations of tenure's sanctification of broadly defined academic freedoms. These findings challenge the assumption that tenure can be justified on the basis of fostering academic freedom, suggesting the need for a re-examination of the philosophical foundation and practical implications of tenure in today's academy.

The study by Ceci et al. shows that academic behavior associated with the core principles of intellectual freedom is more shaped by institutional incentives than by organizational culture. From an organizational theoretical point of view, this is quite an unexpected finding, not least because we do believe universities to be fairly strong and explicit cultures that should be successful in socialization.

Although the target article is groundbreaking and creatively conceived, there are troubling questions regarding its methodology and conclusions. The sample in the authors' study was drawn from a popular magazine's lists; there is no recognition of the fact that most faculty are now off the tenure track; and comparisons are made with the British system with no supporting data.

The ocean of academic knowledge is now so wide and so deep that university administrators must rely on the incumbents in their departments to identify and train new hires. This is in direct contrast to a sports team, where management can readily identify new talent. It follows that aging academics get to enjoy tenure, whereas older athletes do not.

Ceci et al. draw conclusions that are inaccurate, analyze and report results inappropriately, fail to translate their scale into policy-relevant terms, and draw overly strong conclusions from their single study. They also attribute all the ills of academic appointments to tenure, and ignore problems with other aspects of the system. Their conclusion that tenure is not supported is at best premature.

Tenure is designed to protect the academic freedom of faculty members by insulating them from arbitrary dismissal by administrative authorities external to their community of scholars. Therefore, the target article's focus on constraints that derive from peer pressures and academic politics is misplaced, rendering the results of the survey irrelevant to the issue of the value of tenure.

Academic opinions are irrelevant to the value of tenure. Facts are relevant, and the facts are that tenure protects some academics from losing their jobs because they communicate unpopular information, and that some untenured academics do lose their jobs because they communicate unpopular information.

The exceptional importance of the Ceci et al. study for the debate over tenure is noted, particularly the perceived importance of academic rank relative to tenure status. Beyond the significance of academic freedom lie important issues of the costs and benefits of tenure that now need to be addressed in equally rigorous research involving extensive, detailed consideration of actual cases.

The fact that a right is unlikely to be exercised by most members of a group does not mean it has lost its social and justice-defending utility. Current attitudes can be revealed by a questionnaire, but the value of a tradition must be assessed in the light of history. Historically, academic freedom and tenure are inseparable and mutually reinforcing.

The original purpose of tenure has become clouded by the process by which it is granted. In New Zealand, tenure and academic freedom are separate, with academic freedom protected by legislation. Clearly, tenure is neither necessary nor sufficient to protect academic freedom. Individuals and universities must do more to guard academic freedom in order to encourage, nurture, and protect it.

Why are U.S. academics, even after tenure and promotion, so timid in their exercise of academic freedom? Part of the problem is institutional academics are subject to a long probationary period under tight collegial control but part of the problem is ideological. A hybrid of seventeenth-century British and nineteenth-century German ideals, U.S. academia and the nation more generally remains ambivalent toward the value of academic freedom, ultimately inhibiting an unequivocal endorsement.

We do not dispute the findings of Ceci et al.'s study, though they are based on survey research which does not always reflect real-life experiences. We report on cases we have defended on the basis of the tenure system, few of which mirror the situations reported in the target article. We end with a strong defense of the tenure system in the modern university.

This commentary discusses several problems with the target article by Ceci et al. First, the results admit of an alternative interpretation that undercuts the conclusion drawn. In addition, at a number of points, the research should be supplemented by examining situations in which there is no tenure-granting policy. Finally, 60 of the questions are concerned with whistle-blowing, but the issues involved in such cases make them much less relevant to the assessment of tenure than the authors suppose.

Ceci et al.'s (2006) findings remind us that tenure rarely serves its intended purpose. I argue that tenure often fails in part because many faculty members possess an insufficient appreciation for the heuristic value of controversy in science and other disciplines. Using two case examples from clinical/personality psychology, I show how controversial positions can draw sharp criticism while facilitating scientific progress.

The Ceci et al. article is consistent with tenure being a necessary condition for controversial research. In the absence of tenure, as in the United Kingdom, professors have been fired and suspended for politically controversial issues. There are a variety of reasons why tenure does not ensure that professors will engage in controversial research, including career interests and the desire to be liked.

The target article by Ceci et al. provides some interesting results regarding how faculty might react to difficult social dilemmas, but it has little to say about tenure and its effect upon academic freedom. This comment discusses briefly what we know about tenure, and employment protection more generally, and why it may be in a university's best interest to hire tenured faculty. The comment concludes by pointing out that the results make a rather useful contribution regarding the difficulty of eliciting information on malfeasance in organizations, an area of enormous importance. For example, the results may help us understand why the government has introduced rewards for the reporting of fraud under the whistle-blowing provisions of the Federal Claims Act.

Does tenure serve its original purpose of promoting freedom of inquiry for academics in teaching and research? It seems not. Of concern is the finding that achieving tenure does not translate into a significant increase in exercise of freedom of inquiry either in teaching or research. Why? Promotion evaluation for associate professors by their senior colleagues has a continued inhibiting effect.

Although the job security afforded by tenure is one important factor in deciding whether or how to exercise academic freedom, professors must weigh a number of other important career goals that constrain their choices. This multiplicity of goals, combined with concerns about career mobility, may help to explain the differences Ceci et al. observe between professors at different ranks.

Tenure debates and disputes are often irresolvable because of the complex and multivariate nature of contractual relationships between faculty and administration, and the nuanced and varying beliefs about tenure held by the professoriate. The Ceci et al. study leads this commentator to suggest a simple solution allow individual institutions to define the parameters of tenure according to their unique core values.

Tenure should not be judged on its ability to promote whistle-blowing. Because the process of getting tenure may weed out those who might later need it, reform is called for. Reform of tenure must take into account not only the Salieri-effect, but also Thomas Kuhn's popular philosophical attack on independent thought and the tendency towards the use of minimal standards, resulting from the professionalization of research, to block work which is more than minimal. Reform of various institutions to encourage autonomy is needed so that those who receive tenure use it for its intended purpose.