Tenure: the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow where the educator can nestle into like a comfortable chair until death or retirement put paid to their years of professorship. The good old days, right?

Tenures are going the way of the dinosaur, and that may just be a good thing.  Professors, whether tenured or not, should be assessed yearly, by both students and administration, to see if their skills are valuable enough to remain in good standing with the college.

The loss of tenure comes with alleged fear on both sides of the debate. The first, which is rooted in the academia mind-set, is without tenured professors there will be a loss of freedom of speech by those teaching in a temporary position (adjuncts). Those who are hired only temporarily are afraid to speak out since it may jeopardize their standing with the colleges, preventing them from rehire should they “rock the boat.” This reluctance is a fact as some of those interviewed requested their names not be revealed in case of reprisal. Many adjuncts feel tenured professors have a freedom to teach and speak what and how they feel.

The second side sees it similar to term-limits in congress: non-tenure will bring fresh minds, more dialog in the classrooms and force instructors to work hard for their placement in colleges.

A college moving to purely adjunct-driven teaching should not create a fear of job loss or alleviate the need for professors to continue stretching the bounds of their position, to reeducate themselves and never settle into an attitude of complacency.

An adjunct professor of history at Boise State, who wishes to remain anonymous, said,  “As far as tenured professors, I do believe in some way that a person that has made it through the rigors of a doctoral program should be compensated differently. To attract the type of professors the school needs to become a university of distinction it seems that it would have to add more to their compensation package if tenure were eliminated. If you gain more research and development because of a more competitive environment it might be worth it but you would have to make sure you are able to attract and keep qualified and motivated professionals in the positions.”

However, if a tenured professor heading a department drills said department into the ground, nests into their role like a pasha directing his subjects, then that reflects badly on the college, the department itself and finally the students who are witness to the lack of skills offered by the ineffective teacher. And those professors should not be able to hide behind a tenure-enabled academic mindset, which has gone on for ages.

This attitude should also come as a relief to over-stretched, over-budgeted colleges who are witnessing their usual financial resources drying up rapidly. Though, once a college dips its toe in hiring a glut of adjuncts, they see the savings of doing so reflected on their bottom line.

There is little academic freedom with tenured professors, especially those who have lost touch with education itself. When they are ineffective instructors disallowing controversy in their classes due to their “I am right, you are wrong” mentality, then there is a very large problem occurring.

According to Jack Stripling in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Tenure’s protections make it difficult to get rid of incompetent faculty and can promote a culture of complacency among those who have attained the status.”

One of the best ways to run college faculties would allow the faculty to become contractual workers, beginning with a four to five year contract, giving the college those years to phase out programs which are not working, implement new ones and keep the academics alive.

A tenured professor within the English department, who also wished to remain anonymous, said, “Tenure is designed so that professors have the freedom and liberty to pursue their research. It exists to protect the freedom of thought of professors. That said, I think 5-year contracts for adjuncts would be great. This would provide them with job security.”

President Richard K. Miller, in an article written for Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts, pointed out, “Nobody comes to Olin because they’re looking for job security. People come to Olin because they’re looking to make a difference.”

Indeed, those who are no longer making a difference in a university environment should reevaluate their reasons for staying, as should the college administration for allowing them to stay. With each consecutive year at Boise State, the administration should reflect on shedding the college of its own complacent hangers-on. Perhaps it is time to provide limited-issue contracts to educators rather than be shackled with them “till death do you part.”

Armed with all of the righteous indignation a second amendment Carry and Conceal holder could have, I requested an interview with Campus Security and Police Services Executive Director, Jon Uda. Should we allow conceal and carry on campus? At first, I thought yes. But after speaking to Uda, he disarmed my questions with his thought-provoking insights as to why it is best to leave gun defense on campus to trained professionals. Once the interview was over, he had radically changed my perception. On campus, guns should only be carried by those trained to use them.

Uda, whose training in law enforcement is extensive, is passionate about the security of the Boise State.

“The death of a student keeps me awake at night,” Uda said.

And should that death be at the hands of an inexperienced marksman, it would be devastating to the former FBI agent. Uda has witnessed crimes committed by the dregs of society and yet, to hear his emotion when speaking of the students on campus, it is realized how seriously he takes his job.

“I don’t want one student to die on my watch,” Uda said. “We’ll do everything we can to prevent that. At any given time we have between five and seven members of the Boise Police Department on campus. Last year, we had a shirtless man making his way on Juanita St. wielding a machete. An observer called 911 and within one minute we had the guy surrounded and disarmed.”

Asked why Conceal and Carry Weapons (CCW) were disallowed on campus, the usual was reiterated: potential accidental discharge of a weapon, the gun could be used against someone else or used by an unstable owner for their own suicide. But then, Uda got down to the basics.

“When you’re carrying a weapon and have to go to the bathroom, where do you put it,” Uda asked. “On a shelf? On the floor? Or between your legs pointing down? How many who take the basic CCW course will know that?” (The correct answer is C)

As we spoke, his stories of near-misses by trained police officers and even a potential shooting in his own line of work, confirmed how little training a basic CCW entails.

Gun ownership and having a CCW come with a grave responsibility. His simple question, “Have you ever shot someone?” gave me pause to consider how each pull of a trigger can impact possible victims, police officers, insurance companies, and victim’s family members.

Could I really be able to pull that trigger, knowing the bullet wound would be forever? Firing Glocks, various rifles and my Ruger on a gun range, shooting deer and pheasants outdoors is much different than pointing a gun at another human. Even those who are trained regret when it must be done.

“The adrenaline kicks in when you’re faced with that decision. It is a grave obligation when you take a life or harm someone after trying to talk them down doesn’t work,” Uda said.

That has yet to be determined if it was their life against my family’s or my own. However, at Boise State, we have, at any given moment, teams of officers who have undergone those very scenarios, trained to both preserve and take lives should the circumstances arise.

An exception to the no-guns-on-campus rule includes a comprehensive vetting process by Uda for those who feel the need to utilize their CCW on campus, but those instances are few.

“If there is an employee, maybe in the throes of a divorce who has a spouse who’s made threats against them, they fear for their lives, then they can come and speak to us and we’ll do everything we can to make them safe on this campus,” Uda said. “The best crime deterrent we have on this campus are the eyes and ears of students and employees. When they see something not right then call us or 911, we will respond within minutes. If they see someone who may harm themselves or others, we will make sure that person is sequestered and helped.”

The response time on the Boise State campus is in direct correlation with its size. Of the five states that allow the carrying of concealed weapons on public post secondary campuses, many of those colleges have acreage far above Boise State’s.

The largest is the University of Mississippi with a sprawling campus encompassing over 2,000 acres of land. Boise State comes in at a modest 175 acres.

Smaller campuses equate to faster response times by police and security. Plus, it is Boise after all. Not exactly a destination spot for hard crime in the United States.

Conceal and Carry Weapons have their use and in some circumstances, can and do save lives.

However, with the rapid response of Campus Security and Police Services on our campus, the need for untrained private citizens who possess handguns would be unnecessary hazards. On this campus, we should leave guns and their responsibility in the hands of trained professionals.